valjean

Felipe - I edited my previous post to include the line "He can be immoral as long as he doesn't violate the rights of others." right after i posted it, but you responded before having a chance to see that. Just wanted to clear that up. I understand what you're saying about barbarism. In that case, yes, a man has no right to be barbaric.

I agree 100% with this. But, a man can be barbaric or a saint or anything he wants, just as long as he doesn't infringe on the rights of others. He can be immoral as long as he doesn't violate the rights of others.

"The public" and "society" are the same thing. public: n. The community or the people as a whole. (dictionary.com) society: n. 1. The totality of social relationships among humans. 2. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture. 3. The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group. (dictioinary.com) I accept these definitions as correct. It is good to specify which public and/or which society (often, Americans say "public" or "society" and mean "American public" or "American society") Thus, surely, society and the public exist. Ayn Rand intended to convey that the public and society are made up of individuals, and thus do not consist of a single will or intent. "The public" and "society" are not appropriate to use in most Objectivist discussions (although you could say, "The park is open to the public" or "I dislike the general characteristics of that society"). Don't know about VOS.

kilegoretrout and ex-banana eater ... you seem to be saying that it's morally justified to invade another country that is acting immorally and against it's own rational self-interest. I disagree with this. We should have a military solely to protect our own right to freedom from foreign invasion or attack. It is immoral to initiate the use of physical force, whatever the case, according to Ayn Rand. (Rand's statement doesn't account for the possibility of pre-emptive action, but pre-emptive action would clearly be justified if a nation was about to be attacked by another.) Lancifer--I think in an Objectivist nation, the military would do exactly what softwareNerd said. It's foreign policy objectives would be to ensure the rights of its citizens at home and abroad are upheld. Although remember, when a citizen of one nation enters another, he is agreeing in doing so to uphold the laws of that country. As to the structure of the military... I think perhaps hiring national defense out to private corporations could perhaps be done practically, but this is a difficult topic that would deserve a new thread. The different branches clearly need to be able to work seemlessly to respond to threats, however.

"Iraq" (i.e. the Iraqi government) is a semi-sovereign nation, and it is our ally. The Iraqi insurgency is killing and maiming American and pro-American forces with no end in sight. A man does have a right to and should protect himself, even if he is barbaric, immoral, a saint, unjust, etc. He has the right to do that as a man. This is my opinion and you can disagree, however please don't insist that people have "no clue" what things mean and fail to understand concepts. That is personally offensive to say, and we should not be offensive to each other personally, only perhaps ideologically. Well, Bush said that there were weapons there, and there weren't. Right? Isn't that a lie? Regardless of what they thought or didn't think... they told us something that wasn't true and people died for it. I also would like to see proof from anyone claiming that they knew there were no weapons to be found beforehand, however. I agree with the first analogy: A government does have the right to have weapons. It needs them to defend the right of its citizens to freedom from foreign invasion. (Conceptually--however, Iraq probably doesn't need nukes for defense) That doesn't mean it's entitled to these weapons--it must pay for them. I disagree with the second analogy (i.e. agree with what you're saying) I agree with the third analogy: A man has a right to food and shelter. That doesn't mean he's entitled to this--he must earn it. He does have the right to possess those things. I don't have the book you mentioned yet, so perhaps you could clear me up if you're still at odds with what I've said. I still stand by everything i've said in this thread.

I'm not sure if this will clear anything up for you. I'm too busy to get properly involved in the semantics of this at the moment. I came across this, however, and thought about this thread and had to post it. "I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivsim holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgement can be regarded as moal, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality." --Ayn Rand This was in an article about Ayn Rand in a book called "Contemporary Authors" and supposedly the quote was said in an interview with an Alvin Toffer. Sadly, this book does not cite where exactly the quote was originally published.

Starting to sound reminiscent of Vietnam, eh? Regardless of differences of opinion across the board (no pun intended) about whether we should or should not have gone to war, there may come a time when rational American citizens should unite in the statement that "It is time to leave." Whether that is not or not, I am not sure, but it is looming as a future possibility. *Edited to include the following, which was posted while I was writing the above. Well, the dictator does not have the right to exist in the first place. But a country does have the right to have weapons. Thus, this is a cloudy and complex problem.

Thanks, this was a good answer. I apologize for calling what you said childish and demeaning, although I still don't think it's fair to say that I don't grasp concepts or that I do not understand the concept of morality. Let me explain: IF war is justified, we should do it right. I agree with you on this. It was a mistake of us to do it half-assedly. We should do it right or not at all. Our differences in opinion lies in the fact that I think we should not have gone to war, and you think we should have. Yes, we should shoot down somebody who is coming at us with a knife. I think Iraq was more like a person who might have a knife in their pocket. In this case, it's better to get stabbed than to kill the man and say, "Oh, I thought he had a knife and that, if so, he may have used it." Then everybody thinks you're a jerk and there is nothing you can say in your defense. At what point are you suspicious enough of the guy who might have a knife to go ahead and shoot him without getting stabbed first? Some of us were suspicious enough and some of us weren't--that's why there is disagreement among Objectivist-type people about the war. Some people would say we should never leave the possibility of an attack on America open. I think we should have in this case, rather than undermine our ideals of international freedom, cooperation, and the use of force only in defense. I think non-invasive military tactics would have been appropriate, but not an invasion. Lets keep in mind that the "insurgency" happened after the war because of our presence. Right now it appears that the place is full of hostile people, and it is--but they were hostile to us only after we invaded their country and stayed. P.S. I should not have used the word "enslaved" earlier--was just trying to make the point that we've done an injustice to the average peace-loving Iraqi. Also, I did not use the statement "just another country"--I said "another country," which has quite a different connotation. Iraq is another country, but I agree with you that it is not just another country. *Edited by poster to remove accidental quoting of entire previous post

I haven't seen The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand mentioned yet in this thread. If you are interested in art or literature, it's a must. You should read it eventually even if you aren't.

To insist that I don't "understand concepts" is childish of you. And yes, I do consider Iraq to be "another country." If you are going to disagree with me, fine, state your argument; please don't blabber in a meaningless way that simply demeans yourself. When that country initiates the use of physical force against you. Iraq never used physical force against us. One man potentially maybe would have. One man. I would take care of the enemy leaders. Not enslave an entire nation to perpetual American military presence and the Halliburton oil theives. I believe Ayn Rand said that it is immoral to initiate the use of physical force. In some cases we may have to take some preemptive action, but not action on a humongous scale. If anyone would like to express their disagreement with my position, please state your case rationally.

It's a sad day when America initiates the use of an unreasonable amout of physical force against another country.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." —Ayn Rand The bolded parts in each quote seem to contradict. Anyone care to explain? Perhaps once we have agreement on this conundrum we can proceed to answer the original question.

I usually only read this forum, but I had to pitch in when I read this thread. First, I found after studying Rand (esp. Romantic Manifesto) that Objectivism explained why I liked the music I already liked. I haven't found much music I like which doesn't fit well in Objectivism. (This phenomena has occured in other aspects of my life--for example, now I know why I feel like an airport is a temple and why I never was awestruck by the Grand Canyon but wanted to build a bridge over it) Second, I have a cousin who is in a "Noise" band. The Noise movement has become significant--he went on a national tour and is being payed to take his group to Sweden. In light of Romantic Manifesto, I think this Noise is essentially immoral--it breaks down your integration, destroys the use of your mind while you listen to it, etc. I think it should be called anti-music. My cousin said they create this music to protest the poor political and economical state of the country, but I believe the effect of this music would work in the opposite way that it was intended if many people began listening to it.

Thanks for the suggestions. Those would pertain to a paper on philosophy, however. I need to write a literary research paper. Something about what she actually wrote. I could do something like, "Ayn Rand uses the character John Galt to expound upon the idea that the mind is the ultimate tool of mankind." Then I would need hopefully (not absolutely necessary) resources/criticism in which other people comment on the topic. I'm not asking for you all to find my resources/criticism though; just for some more suggestions on a thesis for my paper. And thanks Rational One.

For an AP English class I have to do an advanced research paper on a topic of my choice. I would like to use Objectivism if a suitable specific thesis can be found which I can research. This paper has to be oriented really in literature and not really in philosophy; I've read Atlas Shrugged and will be done with The Romantic Manifesto soon, so that's the extent of what I can really reasearch. I would appreciate any suggestions. My thesis needs to be a single sentence I can elaborate on for at least five pages or so... not too long but very well thought out. A thesis can often be derived from a good question, so either a good question or a thesis of literary merit would be great if somebody could make some suggestions. Thanks in advance. (Please move if in wrong forum)

Is this true? That's absolutely despicable.

Right, except if it was set up simply by a request here, there would be no technical volunteers needed--just Objectivists on campus willing to organize. It would be convenient and it would keep things centralized (well, a bit).

Any proxy can always give in and reveal your IP addy, so it may be practically impossible to be truly unidentifiable. In other words, if you plan on blowing something up, don't talk about it on the internet--even with a proxy. Don't mention this forum or your username to fascist politicians you don't like, and they will never make the connection between your identity here and in other places.

First off--I am 18, and there is NO category for me to vote in in the poll! I am neither "Below 18" nor "19-25." I'm surprised nobody caught this before me, esp. on this site! I'm like 18.5 or thereabouts. Second--people find this website because they want to. People find objectivism because they want to. They best way is by word of mouth, not advertising, although that will help a little. To get college kids to talk about this--you need to target the website for college kids! What I am thinking about is setting up subforums for specific Objectivist clubs on campuses (upon the request of the student leader). Then this leader will get all his or her members on the site to coordinate activities. If there's not an Objectivist club at my college campus next year, I will probably start one, and if you (Greedy) set up a subforum for just us and nobody else, we would certainly use it. This is a good way to boost your revenue. Lucky bastard--I should be doing it myself instead of telling you my good ideas.

In Atlas Shrugged, it was the policy of the dwellers of Atlantis to accept reality at all times. They didn't tune out and ignore what was happening to the world around them--they corageously evaluated everything. Galt said essentially, "We will never fake reality and live in a delusional world." This was a central point in the work. I think by agreeing with Branden's actions, Rand would be undermining this point. Although Rand isn't perfect, she seemed to really mean what she said about being realistic about reality--and for that reason I think Branden's claim was false. MeganSnow--I disagree. It's not about lying or not lying. Either way, you're covering up the truth. There is no difference between telling a lie and hiding the truth by telling nothing. As for what I would do--in the case of the child--I have found happiness in rationality and reality and I believe the axioms of it are simple enough for a child to do so. In the case of the woman, I would tell her she's being delusional by caring about something that won't matter when she's dead. Both my solutions use total rationality and honesty to reach a good end.

I'm not claiming they're accurate--and I'm not advocating that one does so. I am saying that they could be accurate, and one could say that there is a certain chance of the Bible geneologies being valid. In the end I think this is all that can be said about this topic. We are all here because we believe in objective proof and there is no objective proof in favor or in opposition to the validity of Bible geneologies. (I maintain that my educated guess is that there is little accuracy there.)

To take a contrary opinion to everyone else, I think the ancient Jews were probably reasonably accurate record keepers. I see no reason why the geneologies they kept couldn't be quite accurate. On the other hand, they could be totally made up. That all comes down to what you believe. I think that the development of Judaism would have taken long enough that the geneologies could possibly be genuine. In the end I think I'd vote that the geneologies are false--but there seems to be no rational way to prove, for sure, whether they are or not. If you want to believe they're real, go for it, I certainly won't oppose you.