Marc K.

I understand, so am I. What you don't seem to understand is that every judgment you make says something about your sense of life. You accept the concept of "evidence" which implies many metaphysical and epistemological judgments. Please read the Lexicon page on "sense of life" to start. But really you must read the "Romantic Manifesto" in order to understand it fully.

So you have no opinions of your own about what supposedly makes Roark's contract fraudulent? Compelling indeed.

Again, you cannot divorce any particular judgment from the sum total of your judgments. First you need to understand what "sense of life" is.

No it wasn't. What makes you think it was? According to you. Not that I really care but why? Which mischaracterization did you find most compelling?

So why are you not defending Howard Roark's rights? Let us remember who initiated force. Don't tell me you've accepted Jonathan's characterization of fraud and such, have you?

Citations are customary please, for context at least: book, edition, essay, page, paragraph

Do you really think that your sense of justice or objectivity have NOTHING to do with your sense of life? If one's sense of life is: "The integrated sum of a man’s basic values is his sense of life." -- Ayn Rand, "Philosophy and Sense of Life", The Romantic Manifesto p.27 ; then ... ... Do you think it is possible to divorce your sense of justice and objectivity from your sense of life? This is like saying my judgement on this matter has NOTHING to do with the sum total of my judgements.

I have no idea what you are asking or how it relates to what I've written. Care to elaborate?

More evasion. Morality is the science of how one should act. You should just acknowledge that your morality is diametrically opposed to Rand's. And more evasion. Christianity as defined by its practitioners and leaders is self-sacrificial. Feel free to tell us how guilty you feel about acting opposite to your professed beliefs.

Several things wrong here. As at least one other person has said and you ignored: the end product of Ayn Rand's ideas is not really capitalists. Capitalists is a group of people, we exist as individuals. The end product is the ethical man; the selfish, non-sacrificial man. This man cannot be a christian. Christianity is completely opposed to living for oneself. Christianity and Objectivism "cannot be reconciled"; they are not "compatible". Which is what the title of the thread asks. Can Objectivism and Christianity exist together in a free country? Of course. But the ideas that compose Christianity cannot be the basis of a free country. The only way for Christians and Objectivists to live together is for the basis of their association to be rational. The extent to which a country composed of Objectivists and Christians is free, is the extent to which the Objectivist ideas are held and conformed to and the Christian ideas are ignored. The extent to which Christians take their ideology seriously is the extent to which the country will fail and become less free. That is what Ayn Rand is saying above. Christianity does not make one harmonious with capitalists. Capitalists are for making the largest profit possible. Christianity is opposed to capitalism. The extent to which you ignore Christianity is the extent to which you could be harmonious with capitalists. Though, of course that doesn't mean you will be harmonious with yourself. To the extent you take ideas seriously, you will feel guilt. Guilty that you know what the proper course is but you choose not to follow it.

You'll have to define "reciprocity" I believe it is probably an illegitimate, collectivist term. Probably an anti-concept designed to prevent morally and industrially superior nations from defending themselves. If what you mean is that when a savage comes at me with a spear I should not shoot him with my gun, then obviously "reciprocity" is self-sacrificial. If what you are talking about is some sort of "rule" of warfare, then this is not a moral objection, it is a political one. From what you write it seems you have no moral objection to torture. This for instance: implies that you would have no objection if we tortured people in public. The only rule of warfare is that you must do whatever is necessary to defeat the enemy. If you are not for doing whatever is necessary, then you are not for self-defense. My position is that torture would not be necessary if we were willing to soundly, unequivocally and righteously destroy our enemies. If you are for the nuking of Tehran, then we can end this discussion here. No, you are confusing contexts. Objective law pertains to dealing with criminals who are subject to those laws. You might as well ask "where are the laws that define the legitimate use of bullets, bombs and atomic bombs in war?" From what I understand only 3 people were ever waterboarded. If you are speaking about playing loud music, flushing a koran or showing cleavage to detainees, then you are not speaking of the "grotesque" practices that offend your sensibilities. So we now have your "100% efficacy", are you satisfied now? Yes collateral damage is inevitable in war, do you have a problem with it? Are you a pacifist? Or are you one of these libertarians who believe that people have the right to live under tyranny and thus we have no right to defend ourselves?

The justification for torture is self-defense. Are you against that? 100% efficacy? I have no idea what this means. There is not 100% efficacy in the use of bombs or bullets so should we outlaw their use also? I guess it also means that you have no moral objection to torture, right? If it was 100% efficacious then it would be alright to use it, right?

More imprecise language. You used scare quotes twice around "program" but not a third time. "Program" implies a programmer. The sun isn't alive so it cannot die. You have no idea whether humans will be around in 5 billion years. Your usage of the word "good" is not connected to reality. A proper definition of "good" would be connected to human life. "Good" cannot be defined with reference to both life and death. Those two things are opposites and thus the definition would be self-contradictory -- which is exactly what you have done in your first sentence. Presumably telomeres duplicating is an essential process for life. When telomeres duplicate they are supporting your life. You can't then turn around and say the same process is killing you, that is a contradiction.

I know what you are saying but I don't think it is accurate. Using your terminology it would be more accurate to say: We are biologically programmed to live.

I'm sure there are many things about which you are absolutely certain: The color of the sky right now, your hair color, that you are reading this on a computer, that someone else wrote what you are reading, that we live on earth, that fresh water boils at 212 degrees F at sea level on earth at one atmosphere, that 2 + 2 = 4, virtually an endless list. When it falls down you will be certain that it wasn't on solid ground (given everything else was built properly). I'm not sure why the first sentence is "impossible", your last sentence seems to contradict the first one. The foundation is that you should be certain that: existence exists, that reality exists and it is the thing we perceive; that you are conscious, perceiving that which exists; that everything that exists exists as something specific, it has identity (that you have never perceived a thing which had no identity)

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not. If it is, then you can disregard, but this is obviously self-contradictory and thus wrong. What you are saying is that you are absolutely certain that it is impossible to be absolutely certain.

From the article he says: So I guess the answer is: YES. Is there an alternative?

But in a free market there are no societal norms or judgments that are given force or that can be enforced. In the term "free market" the word "free" means: free from force. In the quoted sentence "free market" is a stolen concept -- what you are saying is: "we need a market free from force in order to trade in force". This is the contradiction commonly accepted and ignored by all "market anarchists". This is the fundamental confusion employed and promulgated by anarchists in general: the ignoring of the difference between initiatory and retaliatory force by grouping them together under the term "coercion". For the government to say to its citizens "individuals have the right to life so you may not murder each other and if you do, we will put you in jail" is not coercion since rational people refrain from murder willingly. And it is not initiatory force. It is only the publishing of an objective law along with the consequences of what will happen if you initiate force -- it is retaliatory in nature. Initiation of force is always immoral and should be illegal. Retaliatory force is a moral imperative. Government, properly, holds a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. By using the term "coercive monopoly" anarchists want you to believe that not only is force always bad but so is a monopoly. In fact they are wrong on both counts. From another thread here is my standard argument against a "market in force": There is a fundamental contradiction involved in having a "market in force" and it is impossible to get around. Markets like minds do not and can not operate by force. "Freedom" means: free from force. When we speak of a free market we mean a market free of force. A "market in force" is not only a contradiction in terms but I believe it makes use of a stolen concept. The only way to decide the issue is on principle: - The only thing that can violate your Rights is force. - Therefore, the only civilized interactions among men occur when no force is involved. - The only proper function of government is to protect your Rights. - It follows then that what government must do is outlaw the use of physical force. - You don't outlaw the use of physical force by making it lawful for men to practice it. You cannot uphold a principle by violating it.

Yes, everything fine now. I believe it was fixed later that day.

For the past few days navigating on the forum has been deathly slow for me. When I click on a link to a thread it takes at least 15 seconds to arrive there. I do not have this problem anywhere else on the internet. I got an SQL error a few days ago, I don't know if that is related. Anyone else having problems? Administrators -- any suggestions? Thanks

First you need to review the forum rules as insulting comments about ARI are not allowed. Then, if you can manage to conduct yourself according to those rules, you'll have to provide evidence for this extremely insulting comment. As far as I can tell ARI is perfectly consistent with Objectivism.

Actually the first two sentences are fact and the last sentence states which philosophical side these facts stand on. And if the Tea Party does come to a full understanding of the reasons why these policies are right, then that philosophy can be realized. Whereas, if the policies and philosophy of the Dems becomes fully realized, then we will have the old Soviet Union right here in the United States. This is OK with you? Actually, the only people the Tea Party has voted out of office are those who oppose lower spending and less taxes. The point is that the Dems are 10,000% committed to the welfare state. I don't know why you bring this up since most certainly the Dems are more committed to the welfare state -- a fact you've already acknowledged -- and that is why the Tea Party won't vote for them. I defy you to show me a single person (beyond Objectivists) who actually understands what Natural Rights are. I defy you to show me a single Dem who, to the extend they do understand what Rights are, doesn't want to destroy them. I further defy you to do it by making a logical argument sans fallacious and unbecoming race baiting (you and the Dems make yourselves so ugly and small when you engage in nonsense like that.) You should also watch the attribution of "for themselves", this is an Objectivist forum after all, that selfless illogic doesn't play. Your primary argument, I thought, for voting for Dems was this idea that the Dems represented the only vestige of reason and logic in politics today -- I'm glad to see you've abandoned that false argument, that is some progress. You also seem to agree that lower taxes and less spending are a good thing, why would you ever vote for a Democrat then?

CrowEpistemologist: We must be living in different universes because nothing you have said corresponds to reality as I know it. You'll have to provide more context or a quote or an attribution to this quote since this is something I hadn't heard. My understanding of Ryan's position on Rand is ARI's: he is a fan of Rand's, particularly Atlas Shrugged but he doesn't accept her whole philosophy. Which part of this do you believe is untrue: That the rich disproportionately and unjustly are punished (via taxes) for their success or that all of us would be better off if they weren't? I don't hear any Democrats saying this. Certainly you can't mean Obama who has increased the debt more than all former Presidents combined. I have heard some Democrats say they want to raise taxes to supposedly pay down the debt but all higher taxes equates to is more government spending. I have no idea what this means, a properly attributed quote with full context would be nice. But ... Paul Krugman?!?! Seriously? You are pointing to him as part of this intelligentsia? He is an evil liar with no connection to reality at all. One party acknowledges that spending money we don't have cannot go on forever, eventually it will bankrupt us, as it already has and as it has Europe. They also acknowledge that we are Taxed Enough Already. The other party ignores these truths -- apparently you agree with them. Wow, this is nowhere near the truth. They haven't borrowed the cloak from Aristotle, they have borrowed the cloak from Kant. Kant was pretending to borrow the cloak from Aristotle in order to destroy the cloak, this is what the Democrats/liberals are doing. They don't wear the cloak of reason, they decide things by feelings or subjectively or according to social justice or according to race or group affiliation. They have already destroyed the schools and they are actively working to destroy the minds of the young by what they teach in schools. Do you really think they revere or even respect reason when their leader says: "I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there." !!!!! In other words "Intelligence is not what gets you anywhere." Again, a quote would be nice because I don't often hear Republicans using this word. Perhaps they have used it to refer to Marxist humanities college professors or even Marxist "law professors" but I don't think they use it to denigrate reason or intelligence. In fact, I believe it is more commonly used by Democrats or the Marxist Occupy Wall Street crowd to refer to rich people. Interesting your usage there though: "moronic truck driver". Are all truck drivers necessarily moronic? Who is the elitist now? Funny how you ignored this part of softwareNerd's post and instead decided make fun of Romney's religious beliefs ... as opposed to what? Christian belief? Remember ... Obama is a freakin' Christian right? I'm sorry, in order to keep this out of the category of "floating abstraction" or at least out of the category of "Democratic talking points" we are really going to need a name. I can't think of any. Bill Clinton is supposedly smart but he is also a liar and a cheat. So perhaps you could name a smart, logical, honest Democrat. (I'm sorry to say that this will be an impossible task since, contrary to your defense of some liberal's "internal consistency", logic requires correct premises.) Here is a nice little hyperbolic screed a la who, John Stewart? However it only displays your myopia. You have been asking about reason and intelligence, logic and fundamental premises and when they present themselves you do what Democrats who have none of the above do: you insult instead of making an argument. All of the energy and ideas on the Republican side come from the Tea Party these days but you dismiss them as what? Geriatric hypocrites? Ayn Rand and many other Objectivists collected and collect Social Security. Do you think they wouldn't "vote themselves a pay cut"? Why is it that you find Tea Partiers less sincere that Marxist socialists or even Democrat/liberals? I'm sure most of the Tea Partiers understand that cutting SS must be done and that ultimately it will be beneficial for them. I'm reminded of the election 10 years ago in Alabama I believe in which there was a proposal to raise taxes on the rich in order to supposedly save services for the poor. A large percentage of the electorate was considered poor enough that this tax would either help them directly or not affect them at all, it was expected to easily pass, it didn't, 70% of poor people voted against raising taxes on the rich. People aren't as cynical or unjust as you suspect. So the Tea Party espouses less spending and lower taxes. They envision smaller government and revere the founding fathers and principles. This may not be a full philosophy and they may not even understand it fully, but at least they are on the right side of truth, justice, the American way and "culture, logic and rationality", which are the things you supposedly want to support. But somehow you have convinced yourself that supporting the party that explicitly says: government spending is what creates jobs; redistribution of wealth is fair; if you own a business you didn't build that; working hard and being smart are not how you get ahead in life; government is the answer not the problem; etc. -- is what culture, logic and rationality demand. These things are what has and is destroying the culture, they are illogical and have no connection to reality at all. What you support is destroying the things you say you want to save. You have deluded yourself, your thinking is muddled, contradictory and wrong.

If this was true it would be an easy matter to overthrow oppressive states. This won't work because you have reversed cause and effect. Philosophy is what drives history. It is the fundamental ideas a society holds that determines its course. Leonard Peikoff has written an excellent book entitled The Ominous Parallels that describes this phenomenon in the case of Nazi Germany. The fundamental ideas driving the leaders of a society are the same fundamental ideas held by the populace. In this sense a country gets the leaders it deserves as a function of the ideas it holds. The politicians and leaders of a country do not set the direction of a country, they follow the direction set by the culture. Because of the ideas they held the Weimar Republic got Hitler, in fact they voted for him. The extent to which the people of the US believe that we should be our brother's keeper is the extent to which we have welfare statism. Most of the Middle East is a cesspool of bad ideas, they don't understand, accept or respect individual rights, they get the leaders they deserve. If you assassinate or remove their leaders there will be plenty of people to replace them who hold the same ideas. Look at Egypt, do you think their new government will be more or less aggressive than their former government? This is not to say that a culture can't change, it can. People have free will and can choose to accept different ideas but this takes a revolution, a revolution based on different ideas. But people don't typically change their ideas unless they are shown how destructive those ideas are to their lives. War is only necessary when a country's ideas and culture are aggressive. Once a culture becomes aggressive force is usually the only way it can change. The destruction their culture is inflicting on others must be brought home to them. Iran is the embodiment of the most destructive ideas that exist in the Middle East. It has not only initiated force against its own citizens but also against the US and there is no reason we must stand by and suffer for their bad ideas. The Iranian people will not change their ideas until they are shown in drastic terms what those ideas lead to: death, their death.

Are you not an Objectivist? Of course the answer to the above quote is yes. If we are for the total destruction of a city why would we not be for its partial destruction. Though it sounds like you and I would have different estimates of the number of "innocent people" that existed in Japan. Most of the adults were guilty of allowing their government to become aggressive and they reaped what they sowed. If you are averse to the killing of any so called "innocent" people, then obviously you are against us using bombs all together, correct? If so, should we have fought the Japanese at all in WWII? If so, what weapons should we have used?