Scott_Connery

I would love to hear the full story on that. There must be more.

I don't think the corporal punishment system was the main thrust of that quote. The main part was our revolving door justice system for "children" up to 17 years old.

I think it is purely moral to defend your property with deadly force. As a side note, it is legal in Texas. What does your property represent other than the product of your mind, and your effort? If someone steals that property, they have forced you to work as a slave for them during the time it took you to earn that property. Slavers deserve a bullet in the brain.

Back to these young criminals-- They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged for their crimes. The usual sequence was: for a first offense, a warning -- a scolding, often without a trial. After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation. A boy might be arrested many times and convicted several times before he was punished--and then it would merely be confinement, with others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation--'paroled' in the jargon of the times." "This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then, suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called 'juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult criminal--and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder. -Heinlein

This failure to understand may be the reason why he doesn't understand all the rest. First, in our system "underprivileged" people essentially do not exist. The percentage of people genuinely unable to support themselves is infintesimal. We do have quite a collection of moochers and bums, but that is no one's responsibility but their own. Secondly, charity would still exist in an Objectivist society for the truly needy. Finally, it is a total blank out of the concept of murder to claim that closing down section 8 housing is the same as Auschwitz. No man's need is a mortgage on my life. I cannot live as a slave towards those whose only claim on me is need. Even if true, which I deny, force is not the same as not force. Murder is not the same as leaving someone alone. This is certainly not the defense that Objectivism makes. Further, no one can point to any capitalist, or quasi-capitalist starvations to even justify this bizarre train of thought Now he doesn't even throw the word "tantamount" into his attacks. Objectivists want to open up Auschwitz for the poor. The only place this claim has been established is his own mind. Certainly not in any Objectivist literature, or evidence in reality he can point to. They had better be if he wants to persuade anyone. I think it will soon become apparent that he has no idea what it means "to live for yourself" or "to live for someone else" This is a ridiculous straw-man. It is plainly in the self-interest of anyone to report a violent crime. After all, the murdered might come for you next. It would even be in your self-interest to intervene personally if it could be done safely. The murder could easily and safely have been shot by any of the bystanders if only New York City hadn't made self-defense practically illegal. Finally, and most damning, this situation did occur, but not in the author's imagined Objectivist dystopia, but in real life with exactly the sort of altruistic morality he advocates. Yes, yes it does. The author has plainly read very little about Objectivism, and understood even less. The prohibition on the initiation of force is repeated time and again in Objectivist literature. Blatant, dishonest straw man. He has shown nothing of the sort. Also the first one he will have mentioned, if indeed he can find one. I think perhaps the author thinks that Galt's oath, taken out of context, constitutes the whole of Objectivism. In any case, he has not show why the existence of liars or criminals will in any way undermine an Objectivist country. He clearly thinks force and fraud would be legal, which Objectivism contradicts at every opportunity. This would be illegal and punished by the court system, as Rand frequently discusses. This is nothing more than a dishonest straw-man argument. Also, it is incorrect to say that an "ideal business community" is the goal of Objectivism. He seems to think that a bank account sum for any particular instant is the essence of rational self-interest. This is patently absurd, and roundly contradicted by Objectivism. He has not shown any contradiction. And after a paper full of straw-men, he throws in a few ad-hominems, just to make sure that he isn't taken seriously.

I would happily let a tyrant drown, even if everyone would find out about it. The situation reminds me of the Twain quote: I've never killed a man, but I've read many an obituary with a great deal of satisfaction.

I enjoyed Lucifer's Hammer a lot, and also its quasi-sequel Footfall.

If trading good/services for gold became widespread, I think the government would act to stop it. They can't tolerate competition with their fiat system.

The only thing I can disagree with is the "part I" in your title. The UK has been on this path for decades.

Every guy ever fantasizes about other women from time to time. Women do too. That doesn't mean you can't have a successful relationship. There is also no Objectivist commandment that you become a monk once you enter a relationship.

Your understanding of those clauses bears little resemblance to what was intended when the document was written. Ask yourself why the government had to pass an amendment to outlaw alcohol, if they could just "regulate" its "interstate commerce". By which they mean outlaw everything up to and including personal production for private use.

The 10th amendment says the federal government cannot ban any of the things you listed. Sadly, it gets little press time these days.

Happy birthday!

His definition of "works" and yours might be different. He might mean free markets make it impossible for "the little guy" to be profitable using antiquated methods. It is entirely possible that this statement is true. However, that doesn't mean that consumers would find it impossible to buy food in a free market by any stretch of the imagination.

I find that in real life, most Objectivists do drink. I don't find anything at all wrong with it. The ones I have seen (and the kind I am), don't get falling down throwing up drunk, but see nothing wrong with enjoying a margarita or 3. I think their is a puritan strain of Objectivism (the cause is debatable) that is much more prevalent online than it is in real life.

Don't forget long term storage food, magazines and ammunition.

I will often ask Johnny if he would want Billy to share if Billy ever brought anything fun. That will often make them consider things from the other child's perspective for the first time. Sometimes the just don't like the other kid (often for good reason), and they still don't want to share. I think forced "sharing" is very counter-productive. It teaches them that their property is not really their own. (As a side-note, I think this is one reason why it is very important for parents to make clear to the children which things belong to the child, and which things belong to the parents.) On a more practical note, I very rarely see forced "sharing" resolve conflicts. Usually the first kid ends up really mad, and the other wants to get back at the first one for withholding his toy in the first place. How likely is he to treat it gently and respectfully? What happens to your trust with the children after Billy damages/breaks Johnny's toy? The toy that Johnny didn't want him to have in the first place. I would always make Johnny put his toy away before I forced him to share it. I might also add a comment about how we don't want others to hurt his great toy, and how he probably shouldn't bring it to school in the first place.

I am a teacher of 1st-3rd graders (but not a parent), but I will chime in anyway. Mostly, I tell children who want something a friend has, that there is no rule they must share. I tell them that they would not like it if Johnny came and took their toy, and so they are not allowed to take his. Sometimes, this does not work, and I may ask the first child to put their item (whatever it may be) away because it is a distraction for the class. If it is an item owned by me (or the school) then I tell them that it is not theirs, and I get to decide who may use it.

Their philosophy doesn't have to be perfect, but you have to at least consider it. Also, a lot of people have very different implicit philosophies than their explicitly stated ones.

30-45 mins a day, with the occasional late night when I can't put a book down.

"Biologically normal" seems a pretty dubious standard to me. What if there was a heart surgery you could give men that would eliminate the possibility of high blood pressure or some other heart problem. Would it somehow be immoral to prolong the life of your children because it wouldn't be "normal"?

95 books a year is less than two a week. That doesn't seem like an excessively large amount to me. Imagine all the travel time he has. What if the guy like to relax by reading for 30-45 mins before bed every night. That adds up in a hurry. I suppose it depends on his reading speed and reading list.

I think that sort of weak rebuttal is a big part of why McCain lost. Disappointed is the best he can come up with?

Rules are for little people and Republicans, not the Messiah.

Didn't all of Friedman's Monetarist ideas come after Keynes? Besides, the Austrians had it mostly figured out before Keynes ever started babbling.