[North Texas Objectivist Society]

To whom it may concern:

I've just been kicked out of NTOS

Draw your own conclusions.

Well I briefly checked this out. It reminds me why have a natural aversion to groups. In fact I do not call myself an Objectivist, nor do I care to take on any label. It's all just about getting the right answers.

Anyway, I did not read all the posts, or check into your history of posting. If they (your positions) were matter of fact - correct, then there should be no problem and people should not whine about their feelings.

I will dissect the following because there is some disconcerting bits:

"Let us not get lost in the details of each particular past incident. Let us even assume for the sake of discussion that in the vast majority of these incidents you may have been in the right. Still, it does not appear that you were persuasive,"

Truth is not a matter of persuation, it is a matter of facts. You can point them (the facts) out, but is up to the other individual to integrate them for their own understanding.

"and in fact, in numerous cases the incidents devolved into people being very angry with you. Assuming your intent was to try to be persuasive and not to inflame, at some point the sheer number of such responses should raise a question mark in your mind -- as the question once occurred to you during the matter between you and Ahmad (and yes, again, that particular matter is closed -- the point is your question about the sheer number of these situations in your life)."

Again, if in fact you were correct in the debates / arguments, then the real question is why are people so insecure.

More important is that this individual is trying to infer that the number of "situations" (people) is an important factor. The numbers in this case is are being used to infer something in an invalid way. I.E. you could be living in a society of cannibals and disagree with everyone about the fact that it (cannibalism) is a violation of individual property rights. Would the fact that you are one against many, change the fact that cannibalism is a violation of individual rights? Obviously not.

"on what the difference is between citing 30 years of experience"

This is a useless claim. It does not account for efficiency. A mediocre person putting in 30 years is not comparable to an exceptional person.

A lot of rhetoric builds up in social situations. If correct answers are the goal, then all insecurities that result in offensive and defensive behavior become a severe liability. What ever the real facts are here (again I did not check into all of it), rationality will prevail ... or not.

[The Rationality of Winning]

Is it rational to want to win "for winning's sake"? If so, why?

Strictly speaking ... No

1) blatantly inferior competition

As already partially mentioned in previous posts, there is no context. Say your a 23 year old athletic individual playing tennis with 12 year olds (or some 80 year olds). Not much of a victory.

2) Winning with a sub par effort

Winning when you have not pushed yourself to your best, or to a new level is not very rewarding, as has been pointed out.

3) Unsuitable intellectual appraisal

Another point: what if your victory is a result of an ignorant group of people who are the ones who decide who should be victorious. One of the clearest examples of this was pointed out by Rand in the R-Manifesto - Art. What if people decide abstract smears of paint are better then studied realism.

Should the person who smeared the paint be rejoiced in their victory, or should they be unnerved by the fact that these peoples intellects are inspired by contemplating barely constructed gibberish.

3) What can be gained by losing

As pointed out already; if one is bested by a superior effort by an individual, they can learn from that defeat. If they are bested by an inferior effort, or a fraud, then there is nothing to learn. Well except that people who have no ability to assess something can be fooled; or cheating (performance drugs in sports) works, if winning is your only goal.

[Why has religion been so persistent?]

Addressing the original question:

Religion is a product that serves many purposes. It is a popular product, that has been successfully marketed. The reason for that success ... well ...

[Is the desire to be admired second-handed?]

My question is "is the desire to be admired second-handed"?

Maybe it is better to say: recognition of that which is good. You want to have, that which is good (about you), recognized by others. That means only those capable of that recognition, will in fact be able to see those good things. Depending on what you do (or accomplish) will determine who, and how many, will be able to recognize those things. If you are at the other side of the bell curve (the side where intellects exceed the average) your accomplishments will most likely not be recognized by the average person (people - the mean average). You could rightly say a scientist that does something incredible will most certainly not be as popular as a sports athlete. It is easier to understand what a football player does than a genetic researcher. People can guzzle beer in front of the boob tube, and have what they call, a good ol' time. You can't get drunk with yahooing buddies, and read some genetic research. It requires a some proactive focus.

To go with the Objectivist examples: "Peter Keating" wanted popularity, or unqualified attention, not real admiration.

Back to your original question. Recognition proceeds potential admiration. It takes X amount of good things to be recognized before an individual will admire another. That amount will depend on that person's (the potential admirer's) own level (abilities).

So wanting admiration is not really a good desire. Wanting recognition for the good is. Admiration will only happen if the situation is correct.

Analogy - redundant to previous posts.

Who appreciates a finely engineered automobile more?

Person A who knows nothing about the vehicle except that, when they are seen in it, they get attention.

person B who knows the specs and much, or all (at least in concept), of the engineering involved.

Replace the vehicle with you.

Would the professed admiration, of person A, be as valuable as person B?

[Why has religion been so persistent?]

Forgive me..I must be misunderstanding you...You can't actually be trying to suggests that a moral code is based upon an objective reality can you?

If you are, then please do explain which of the moral codes of say Christians versus Muslims is the objective one and which is the self delusion?

In an attempt to anticipate your reply, I would might guesse that a possible reply to the above question might be to say that all codes based on a religeous foundation are self delusional. If that would be your response, then perhaps you might like to answer this question as an alternatve:

Which of the two moral codes of say a capitalist versus a socialist....or a humanist versus an objectivist is the objectively based code and which the delusionally based one? Please feel free to substitute any particular philisophical/political/religious code for the ones I have provided

I look forward to your reply

Sorry about the late reply. I do not post, or visit forums much anymore.

I do not consider myself an "Objectivist" which is why I usually put a disclaimer on my posts. I do not know all the Objectivist view points. I came at this process from a simple angle - it's all science - the drive to get correct answers.

A previous post used the word subjective. This word is only valid in limited context. The word objective means without prejudice, to observe as is. It is the proper frame of mind needed for proper scientific methodology.

Example: For an automobile to function; it must adhere to the dictates, of the reality of, the environment in which it must function (objective). The color of the vehicle is a personal preference (subjective).

I will finish by saying that; Abstractions and concepts must adhere to reality (be based on reality), like the automobile example given above, in order to be valid.

Morals are concepts.

I am not up for a more elaborate explanation.

Two final notes:

1) Many people are turned off when conversing with "Objectivists". Some "O"ists are better then others. Thinking is a skill. Rand the originator was an exceptional intellect (I have read Shrugged, Fountainhead, some Romantic Manifesto).

2) standard Disclaimer: I am a rogue intellect claiming no affiliation.

Edit: the 1st final note might sound condescending (I hope not). We are all intellectually held to reality.

capitalist versus a socialist

I consider socialism any social organization that creates a system (governing body) that can use force against individuals, as opposed to anarchy, which is individualist allowing no such body to exist. In that context it is: Socialism vs. Anarchy

Note that in either situation individuals can be, and interact, morally. The knowledge of what is moral, and it's application is a choice.

So I am not dodging all the "isms", religions, or philosophies. I just address issues, as stated at the beginning of my response. In this case the issue is "morals"

[Mark Skousen on Ayn Rand]

"But there's a dark side to Rand's teachings. Her defense of greed and selfishness, her diatribes against religion and charitable sacrificing for others who are less fortunate"

Rand was not against helping someone of value.

". Rand's plot violates a key tenet of business existence, which is to constantly work within the system to find ways to make money."

If the system is corrupt your need to fix it ... don't you?

"Real-world entrepreneurs are compromisers and dealmakers, not true believers. They wouldn't give a hoot for Galt. " ("an inversion of the Christian values that predicate authentic capitalism")

The above is true. However Skousen is saying that compromise is then a christian value. Ergo compromising ethics for gain is then an accepted christian value. That's why some christians were OK with slave ownership (way back) ... compromise.

"Perhaps a true capitalist spirit can best be summed up in the commandment, "Love thy neighbour as thyself" (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:39)."

Except you can compromise the love part and in any unethical manner - stick it to them, if there is something to be had.

"John Galt – it's time to come home and go to work."

And give the value of his intellect to whatever system, or to those who would compromise him for short term gain? Oh well ... Guess that's why some things will never change. Too bad.

Mr. Skousen, you absolutely have a right to practice your religion. Just keep it where it belongs ... in your home or church.

disclaimer: I am a rogue intellect claiming no affiliation. Uzilla will now leave the building.

[Why has religion been so persistent?]

The human brain has evolved in a way where a tendency to believe in a god is hard-wired.

This is really taking something out of context.

My interest in this topic also has a very personal element. A sibling of mine who at one time was a declared atheist like myself became a born-again Christian. He says he did this when he had children. He says Christianity provided a moral guide for his children in our permissive culture.

He does not actually understand what a moral is. An isolated abstraction embedded in a fallacious concept removes the full context from the abstraction and corrupts it.

I am an atheist and I think that that without God...all values are baseless. don't misunderstand me...some values serve a pragmatic function wich is why they persist across time.

Morals are not pragmatic. Honesty and productivity are moral pursuits when set in proper context.

In a universe without God, none of the above morality has any intinsic value or maining.

The above statement is false. In fact religions remove morals from their full context, and in the process cause confusion. Some would say better then nothing.

Alternatively, I may choose, for reasons philisophical, to behave in certain ways that conform to a code of conduct I, or someone else has invented. This last reason is the most noble since it is really based on a dream. However, the dream is one that is voluntarily entered into. An atheist must, if he or she is honest, re-invent his or her morality each day when they consciously re-enter the world. The universe couldn't care less if they chose not to. This is, surely, superior to the morality of a person of religion. Such a person is also dreaming, but is too blind to know that they are.

A moral and a set of morals (forming a code) have an objective origin. You do not invent a moral. It is an objective observation.

[Punishing The Good And Rewarding The Bad]

My supervisor is a great businessman. He is effecient, decisive, a good leader, and great money manager. He always acts in the interest of the company except in one respect, which I can not figure out. He always seems to give the worst people in our organization the most "chances."

Isn't this statement a bit contradictory.

[Sometimes you feel like a nut ... sometimes you don’t]

It's a give-and-take thing.

I used to find it irritating when a woman doesn't speak up about such things. Especially during early dating. How else are you going to know?

The last thing any rational person would want is to make someone, they are interested in, is to feel uncomfortable. Food allergy or whatever.

I will leave out my irritation about the use of the word instinct.

[Objectivist significant others]

Rational thinking is a choice. All individuals must make their own choice. That choice will have it's rewards and consequences.

Quote Moose from suggested earlier thread "Like I said, it's practically impossible to find someone who will share all of my principles"

It is impossible that two people would value all things the same, or all the same things.

Quote Kevin Delaney from suggested earlier thread: "It's a very bitter pill to swallow for a lot of people, and people fight it in every way imaginable: Romantic love is between equals. And to be "equals" in this context means to be able relate to one another as equals. Not as teacher to student, or as parent to child, but as two complete, mature, independent adults."

Equal in an all inclusive context, does not exist. That is; people are never intellectually equal. A more harsh pill is that: You may, or may not, find your equal as in the context given above. (Ah the Bell Curve ...)

Attempts to compromise, like all actions, lead to results (both short term and long). To sell your "objective value" short is to invite unnecessary punishment. To try to sell high - attempt a fraud, yields no positive return, and won't last.

Another harsh reality is that in a bad environment, where incorrect thinking is promoted, your choices will be equally affected.

There is always fantasy and self love

quote gnarqtharst from suggested earlier thread: "I believe that we typically fall in love with a person's "sense of life". In our present culture, a person's sense of life is very rarely also expressed in explicit philosophical terms, and sometimes one's sense of life is contrary to one's professed philosophic terms."

Substitute "attracted to" for "in love with" and this is a rational observation. Were any relations lead from there is dependent on values (valuation).

quote gnarqtharst from suggested earlier thread: "On the other hand, I think it's reasonable to desire that a person's positive sense of life becomes integrated with a positive explicit philosophy over time. If it does, great. If it doesn't, also fine, as long as the sense of life remains intact. But if a bad philosophy threatens to corrupt a good sense of life, trouble can arise."

I think there is a better way to explain it, then using the word philosophy, but so be. Incorrect thinking (that which does not align, in complete context, with reality) will lead to the destruction, damage, or alteration of, a positive sense of life. action > result

It is sad to see someone, with a positive sense of life, who has been taught to self destruct.

disclaimer: I am, an independent rogue intellect, claiming no affiliation.

[Personal Dilemma]

This assumes that many of us here have not already done this and subsequently came to different conclusions. As such, what matters then is who has correctly identified reality. Also of importance would be one's interpretation of "truly rational".

1) My presumption was that Dismuke has not. As stated in one of the above posts I have met a few Objectivists in other forums. You have taken this out of context.

2) You have inserted yourself claiming to be the representitive of many others. Because of the way you entered this I have to question your motive.

Of what you wrote the last sentence and the bolded portions are the ones I will go along with.

I really have to leave this now as it is not productive.

[Personal Dilemma]

Hmm, well, I need to end this and bail for a while. I have many things to do and little time...especially in the immediate.

All of this definitely reinforced the fact that full situational context is critical to any serious matter. In this case it can not be done here.

If there is a syndrome for seeing full situational context in any given situation, as well as people's motives (when interacting) too quickly. Then count me in.

I will say this I am not fimiliar with the syndrome you purposed and I am not much for such things as they are seldom contextually anchored.

JMEGAN; I think that is a more realistic observation.

Anyway thanks. Time to tune out for a while.

I do recommend one thing and that is roaming through many forums and debating the multitude of people who are not capable of making critical observations and consequently unable to put together proper concepts or rational arguments. If you really push people, I am affraid you will find there are not very many truly rational ones.

[Personal Dilemma]

I wasn't going to say it, but I actually had the same thought.

Well I knew I should not have posted this. Especially without putting it into full detailed context.

I want to laugh, but so far in my online adventures in different forums (in debates) has demonstrated to me that people calling themselves Objectivists have been far better at making points than others. So I will consider your post to be sincere. Here I must also point out that I have never considered myself an Objectivist. It is a label that keeps getting pinned on me in debate forums. Having run into Objectivists in debates in Atheist forums I have developed some respect for these individuals. That is what led me to try to post this here. As stated in the first follow up to the first persons response, the problem is solved.

To try to bring an end to this monster, I will add a little more to the context.

I am ruthless about assessing value.

I consider the potential relationship between men and woman to greater than any other. As such I hold it to a far greater standard than any other. Miss Rand pointed out in her books that a man can not really have what he can not earn. Very true. To really have something, you must be able to really grasp its nature and value to be able to earn all of it. If you can not you are just a primitive holding onto something in ignorance.

Relations are the same.

One sure sign of primitive behavior is an attempt at manipulation. Manipulation is a form of power gaming used to aquire what someone can not earn in an up front honest manner. Look around you. How many people make an honest attempt to be strait forward vs. those who think the ends justify the means.

So it is simply this. Many many years ago I reached a point of full contextual understanding of what it means to be honest vs. manipulative. Independent vs. dependent. At that point I realized that in order to earn the level of woman I was able to conceive, I had to make some really hard decisions that would (in a particular context) cost me. It mattered little in the face of what I knew to potentially be out there. In fact shortly after that critical point in my life I read, the first of three Rand books, Atlas Shrugged. From the first Metaphor of the mighty tree, that turned out to be hollow and rotted, I was hooked. More over it was confirmation of what I had already understood.

One last bit. Life is too short to waste on compromised relations. I am in a position to accomplish many things. Things that, as a child, I never dreamed of. I am very selfish about this. Add to that the fact that I do not have enough life left to get to even a third of the things I can.

Call me a Vulcan, if you wish, but it is incorrect to think that I am incapable of feeling.

[Personal Dilemma]

For the heck of it I stopped in to check the physical fitness thread, and was about to move on. I saw someone had posted here so .... Though I already found the answer I was looking for, I decided to respond. First up; thanks for the time.

(Sorry if this response seems long-winded ...)

"Social standards" is pretty vague, but given the tone an content of the rest of your post, I'm guessing that you don't care for the small talk

mia culpa

Your perceptions about someone new that you see may give you some information about them, but not everything. You have to discover them, just like they have to discover you, and that takes time. We live in a society that is very irrational at times,

I would say that, as most people are not capable of consistent objective thinking, any society (collection of individuals) is irrational.

Would you have gracefully led her to introduce herself, dropped a few seeds of interest in her ear, then created a context where you could spend time together? Or would you have scared her away with a swashbuckling display of epistomological syllogisms?

If only a spoon full of sugar would make the syllogism go down... Hmm I am not sure what is worse? That joke, or the fact that that song is still stuck in my head.

A romantic relationship is not a means to an end. It is an end in itself. True, the aspect of value-exchange applies, but sex isn't the only value. There's companionship, the ability to soften the sting of disappointments, to sweeten triumphs, and mutually alleviate loneliness. If you don't want those things, and the only value you're seeking from women is sex ... Well, there are women who do that kind of thing, but don't expect an insightful, analytical mind to dazzle you in the afterglow.

Bull. You have to feel at least something to have sex with these women. Forgive me for being a bit crude, but if it's just a chemical drive, there are less involved ways of satisying those desires. Are you such a slave to hormones that you must manifest their express energies before understanding "the situation"? There's "feeling" there ... I'll bet they need futher checking, otherwise you're sleeping with women while being completely numb.

I am too private a person to fully address this. So here is a brief explanation. I feel more sexual after an accomplishment (the stuff of life). So combine a celebratory feeling with the fantasy of what my ideal woman is and I make it work. Sure, it is absolutely no substitute for the real thing, but sometimes making do is better than nothing.

Objectivists aren't supposed to be Mr. Spock. You can be warm, kind of spirit, generous with yourself, and still be acting objectively, intellectually, and very much in your self-interests. It's not automatic knowledge, though ... it takes hard work and practice.

If received a $100 dollars for every time "Spock" or "Vulcan" came up when people have addressed me...

Back on a serious note; thanks for the time spent.

[Physical Self Improvement]

This is coming from a lower case objectivist who is just passing through. I have only read Fountainhead, Atlas Shruugged, and Anthem. This does not qualify me as an Objectivist.

Your brain is part of, and dependent on you body and its systems, therefore keeping your body at an efficient level of fitness is the only logical choice.

The first part about:

if you are in a position where you need to be seen as a leader, physical appearance can be a tremendous help in gaining respect

Though largely true this is superficial in nature. The only way anyone should allow someone to lead them is if the can objectively see that this person has superior skills. In this fashion they can learn from this person while improving themselves. Sadly in real life that is not always the case.

The second part about:

Appearance (which consists of clothing, body language, and physique) can intimidate, inspire, comfort, or even anger people if you wished. All of which you can use to your advantage.

This like your other example seem to show that you are very concerned about the affect of appearance. Rational people will be more concerned with your abilities. Lesser intellects will not be able to go much beyond the superficiality of appearance.

[Personal Dilemma]

Answer? What is the question?

Emotions are automatic responses to values. The only way to not feel in such a situation is to either suppress or, worse, repress emotions. The latter is a serious psychological problem because emotions are crucial to the life of an objective, rational person.

It has been a while since discussing something with someone of precision. I should have defined things better. I fail to develop the kind of response they are seeking from me, because they do not ultimately have the values I seek.

It would seem logical to me that it would work both ways. That there is a value mis match therefore you go on your way ... no harm no foul.

I also check the context of any given situation if there is any question about my own response. But I will check the Rand book on the suggested topic.

What about happiness, assuming that is your ultimate purpose in life? And, if it isn't, why not?

Can not be anything but happiness. Though I prefer the word satisfaction, as people generally seem to think transient drunken moments at parties, or feeling part of a community, are the stuff of happiness.

I too have found peace -- and happiness -- but through objective selection of friends, romantic and otherwise.

This is good.

For me the solitude allows me to focus at a level I can not achieve with the distraction of typical social environments. Though I can only imagine that should you find like minded companionship it would not interfere with your focus, but rather energize.

That said; thanks for the time. I have since figured out the contradiction that was causing my frustration. I should have waited before posting out of frustration.

[Personal Dilemma]

I hate to do this but my options are limited. I will try to be succinct but I do not like talking about personal things. Note that I do not consider myself anything other then a valuer of objective knowledge.

I was just out and saw an incredibly beautiful woman, but I have become a hermit. There are exacting objective reasons for this: Value exchange. For people to interact there has to be some sort of value exchange. That is, at least enough to produce the desire to interact.

I value knowledge. I respect those who can correctly gather it, whether new, or existing and utilize it efficiently. I have never cared about social standards ... only objective ones (about the nature of what man is and the nature of existence).

When people try to interact with me (some with an incorrect presumption that I must need a friend) it annoys me. I do not feel the need to socialize in almost all regards.

The only exception is spending time with women, though because of the value exchange it ends up being only a sexual thing. Then they get mad at me when I do not develop any feelings toward them. I could explain that I do not allow unchecked feelings. In other words, I do not feel before analyzing the situation. If they do not offer the value I defined above, ie.efficiency of knowledge, I can not feel. At least the way they do (blindly).

I have grown sick of interacting with people and their undefined, ignorant and manipulative ways.

Hence the decision to be a hermit. I can put up with the wacky things people make up when they learn that I am a hermit. People need to fill in the blanks and are willing to make things up when unable to get the truth.

However, the following delema is I am ashamed to say, seemingly beyond my ability to resolve.

Alright, finally I get to the delema. I still have this irrational desire to be with a woman, knowing full well that I would have to end my hermit existence and fit into society to a far greater degree than I do now. So I would have to endure that which I loathe in order to be with a woman who can probably offer limited value exchange.

Massive pain, for some pleasure.

So back to the beautiful woman. What do I know about her other than her physical excellence and beauty? She demonstrated bi-lingual mastery that is out of the norm. The combination was enough to get me thinking about this and tremendously frustrated. Frustrated because I found her attractive (potential pleasure). Pain knowing the price; Fitting in more (socially). I have found peace in solitude!

So there it is. Sould anyone think they have an answer and wish to spend the time.

[The law of causality incompatible w/ randomness?]

If randomness means lacking a cause, such an assertion is not arbitrary, it is contradictory and therefore impossible.

There can be no "randomness" in the context used in this conversation as there would be nothing for that which exists to adapt to. For adaptation to occur there has to be repeatable structural behavior. Randomness as described here would indeed contradict existense.

[Split: On Anarchy]

This is known in other parlance as a "lynch mob".  And, how DO you know that other people are moral?  Do you read their minds with your super powers?

The way I would have to judge anyone or any government. But lets take a hypothetical situation in which the current system is used and we have the typical court system. In this system you have a judge who is probably not rational presiding over two lawyers who are trying to make names for themselves and the defendant might be facing a powerful person with heavy political connections.

So in either case, if the people involved are rational, things should work out properly

In either case if the poeple are immoral it ends in a lynching. One by a mob , the other by a system (police, military) backed mob.

Ultimately my problem is that the only real answer is for everyone to be moral and no system can force people to be so. No system can stop immoral people from becoming part of it and corrupting it.

It is also immoral to expect people to risk themselves to help you out of some vague idea that this is going to establish a "precedent" that will assist everyone somehow.

Is it not just as immoral to pass off that responsibility to individuals in the form of a job and if the government is corrupt that would make those whose job it is to police such a situation nothing more than mob type thugs.

Any political system depends on the integrity of those practicing it, which is why you need a strict codification of the rules the government is expected to obey.  Even if everyone within a society were moral, there would still be misunderstandings about contracts, rights, and other finicky applications of law,  and the possibility of invasion from without, so you would STILL need a government.

ann r kay answered this one for me (below)

An excellent example of this is our corrupt judicial system. Laws are carried out and created based upon an arbitrary whim of the person or person's intrepreting the constitution. The constitution, and the rights set down by the constitution, should be read objectively, and not subjectively. In other words, while the consititution itself, as it was written, may in fact allow for the least amount of government control over individuals, it doesn't matter, as the law is only as good as the individual who reads and interpets and carries it out. 

Take into consideration social security. By the constitution, it is illegal. But try telling this to someone who chooses to include social security under "Congress shall provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare". Any rational individual would know that the founders of our constitution would be appalled by such a gross misinterpetation of the word "welfare".

Another excellent observation. If the enemy is raised to attack, my first duty is to  my life and the life of my loved ones. Not a government that may or may not make the decision to defend me. 

I am not sure if I am, either. The more I read, the more I think that Objectivism, as I understand it from this board, is not for me.

I would very much like to hear your thoughts on that. You are posting things that are very similar to what I have posted elsewhere. Do you post on other sites?

[Split: On Anarchy]

OOps rookie mistake. Fair warning though. I also came to this forum after being called an objectivist numerous times on atheists sites. I really just consider myself a scientist. I initially joined becuase I stumbled across the topic of the nature of the universe on this site and in quick review saw someone asking if something could come from nothing; which of course is impossible as nothing is an absolute (that does not exist). Something can only come from something. there were other things regarding relativity, physic, etc. that I was going to jump into but changed my mind.

No one's rights would be protected without a government.  This is why you HAVE to have a government.  In order to have a civilized society, physical force must be disbarred from relationships among men.

Physical force is morally justified as a means of property (SELF) defense. Rational people (if they are truely rational) would help other individuals (as long as they knew these others to be moral) to protect themselves against immoral acts as it is in one's rational self interest to set such a precedence.

The government is the institution charged with maintaining a monopoly on retaliatory force; this is the only way to prevent mob rule.

Does this not presuppose that they individuals in that government are not immoral and seeking to use force to oppress individual rights. An example would be the founding fathers who owned slaves. The may have signed of on the statment that all men are created equal but they were more then willing to say that A was not A. Latter laws were passed by government to help slave owners. Yes finally it ended, but it points out something very important: That if all the individuals in a society are moral you would not need a government. If however there were immoral people (and we know there are) in a society and you wish to have a government as you discribed to protect individual rights, it must be obvious that the immoral people will see this government as a great tool for controlling and oppressing individuals. No document has ever stopped this from happening. I have yet to see evidence of a government that has not been thoroughly corrupted.

I would rather deal with an individual tyrant in which case I can defend myself rather than deal with a tyranical government backed by an army filled with individuals who probably would not go against orders (in mass) even if they knew it was wrong for fear of there own lives.

If rational people are not willing to gather freely and hastily in defense of the autonmous individual against a tyrant or a group of tyrants, are they really rational people?

Anyway thanks for tipping me off to my error. I was temporarily stunned by so much logic coming from the other newbie.

Also I should reiterate my disclaimer. I am not really sure I belong here.

[Split: On Anarchy]

Anarchism is the theory that any type of government is incompatible with individual liberty, so I can't agree with what you said about an anarchic system.

Personally, I would love to live in a society where government is not necessary, but the reality is that humanity is not mature enough yet to handle it.

No, humans are better than machines. Humans have the capability to move beyond their programming, if they so choose.

Agreed, except on one point. Why should I place a greater value on the government's opinion then on my own? A government, if it is elected officials, is elected by the majority. Just because a majority says something is right, does not make it so.

Sorry for the lack of dialogue. I am just going to enjoy the rational statements you have posted...especially the first one quoted above.

You have developed in a remarkably rational way.