Marc K.

Objectivism is a philosophy organized such that its base is metaphysics and epistemology from which an ethics is derived from which a politics is further derived. So, in Objectivism, we discover and define principles of metaphysics and epistemology before moving on to ethics. Similarly, ethical principles are discovered and defined before political ones. To the extent this is what you mean by the above I agree. However, as a general rule and in principle, the way we learn is by looking out at reality, using reason and conceptualizing and generalizing about what we see. Objectivists follow this procedure, it is an inductive procedure. You cannot reason without having something to reason about. You cannot discover a principle without first having looked at reality. This is true about governments also so I must disagree with your last statement above. It sounds a bit rationalistic and is related to what you say here: This is true of ALL existents and yet we are still able to conceptualize. All specific instances of a concept differ in manifold ways from other specific instances of it. That doesn't mean that we can't conceptualize and generalize about cats, animals, apples, fruits, plants, or even governments. It is not only possible but necessary and crucial that we do examine particular governments throughout history looking at their similarities and differences, grouping them by essential characteristics in order to generalize and conceptualize about what a proper government looks like and how it should act. When comparing governments one concept that quickly becomes apparent as a clear dividing line is the concept of "force". Free or semi-free countries stand on one side of this divide. All the others, including anarchist systems, stand on the other. I think one of the best ways to deal with socialists is to have them define what they mean by socialism and then point out that where ever and when ever this has been tried it has been a disaster from beginning to end. How could ancaps care about liberty when they don't understand what it is? It is like saying that the thief cares about wealth production or the wealthy. The thief cares about wealth in as much as it allows him to survive and on principle he destroys the very thing that allows him to survive -- same with ancaps. An ancap country would have to start out being a capitalist country because we and they know that it couldn't start out in anarchy and become free on purpose. But then the very principles that make a capitalist country free; and I am speaking of the principles of government (i.e., a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force, or, more illustratively when talking about anarchy, outlawing the use of force) -- I know that other principles, held by the people, are prerequisites; the very principles of government that make a free country possible are the ones the anarchists want to overthrow. An ancap country might start out differently than Somalia but it would soon devolve into pure anarchy. That is, to the extent they implement their plan to make the use of force "legal", is the extent their country will be destroyed. I didn't know that that was the case with 2046 though I did invite him to link to an argument if he had one, he chose not to. After you said this I did look a little at past anarchist threads. I have participated in a few as has 2046 but I haven't read any of his posts and I haven't engaged him in the past (as far as I know). I was insulted by his false generalizations about Objectivists, which presumably includes Ayn Rand, especially since he would not defend them. When someone insults something or someone you value, being offended and defending them is an appropriate response. I won't apologize for it particularly considering where we are. If there is any place on the internet where you should defend Objectivism this is it. So actually, I don't think I bullied anyone. And while my "argument" may have been short and incomplete I don't think it was either bad or throw away, it was realistic and essential.

As far as I can tell he has no point. He spoke only in false generalities and since you call on me to make a principled argument I'm wondering which legitimate point you think he made? Or even, which illegitimate point did he make? That Objectivist arguments are weak while anarchist "scholarship" is strong? He provided nothing to support this bald assertion and therefore made no point. He provided no argument and instead disparaged Objectivist thought in favor of anarchist "scholarship". This is what I said: And you replied: Are you saying that arguments relying on perception are invalid? Are you saying that comparing life in the US and China is an invalid form of argumentation? Are you saying that looking at how life goes in North Korea as opposed to life in South Korea can play no role in identifying what freedom looks like? Good job understanding from where principles derive in the first place. As it turns out, the example I gave (and it wasn't limited to Somalia) does what I said it does: it is all one needs to know in order to decide why not to live there. However, I agree, to make a full philosophical argument one needs to identify principles and that is exactly what I did and what 2046 failed to do. Good job reading the thread before spouting off. Let me reproduce my principled argument which answered at least part of the OP since you were unable to locate it: "Anarcho-Capitalism" fails on many grounds. Due process is one legitimate argument to make against it but as the quote you provide (good job citing Ayn Rand by the way) shows and you acknowledge: the more fundamental issue is the confusion (or more likely: the intentional conflation) of initiatory force with retaliatory force. It should be noted (and I'm not blaming you, I know you are just using their terms) that the term "Anarcho-Capitalism" is worse than a contradiction in terms, it is an anti-concept meant to destroy freedom, which is the goal of anarchism in the first place. So, just as anti-capitalists use the term "crony-capitalism" to denigrate capitalism, use of the term "anarcho-capitalism" should be seen as suspicious in and of itself and discouraged. The reason it is legitimate to bring Somalia into the conversation is because this is the logical end-state of any system using anarchy to mete out justice. "Anarcho-capitalism" beautifies "anarchy" but doesn't change its essential character at all. Once you allow private companies to use retaliatory force there is nothing in principle stopping every individual citizen from using retaliatory force and adjudicating matters in their own courts (if vigilantes even decide to be that civilized). It sounds like you want to defend "anarcho-capitalists" by saying that they don't really envision Somalia as their end-state. Well neither did Marx envision the USSR as his end-state. It doesn't matter, neither understands that freedom means "free from force".

Oh, I get it, you are not insulting me per se, you are just denigrating Objectivists in general. Objectivists who on this issue are dishonest pretenders who embarrassingly pretend to answer an argument while never addressing its substance. Objectivists whose sad generic arguments are unable to match the "scholarship" of the anarchists. No, we shouldn't take offense to that at all. Absurd. Presumably you include Ayn Rand as one of those pretending Objectivists with unsubstantial, sadly generic arguments. I'm sure she wouldn't be insulted either. I guess we know which side you are on. Well, I address one of the anarchist arguments above and while it may be simple, it is effective (I find that to be the best way). You are welcome at any time to actually address it with some substance of your own once you are done blowing hot air. The only thing one needs to address anarchist arguments are simple generic ones. Really all one needs is perception: look at the world and examine where anarchy reigns and any person with half a brain can understand why they wouldn't want to live there.

You are speaking in code as if we have had this discussion before, I don't recall ... have we? If we have please post a link to that conversation. Otherwise, as I stated before, I do not know to which anarchist arguments you refer. And I have no desire to address every anarchist response, most of which are either not well thought out, ill conceived, unprincipled, lacking context, illogical or plain idiotic. If you have one then present it (succinctly please) and if it isn't any of the above I might address it. I address, in principle, the only anarchist argument I have seen with a shred of appeal to logic above: the idea of a "market in force". I show it to be completely illogical and this addresses at least part of the original poster's concerns. I also linked to another thread I participated in, in which many more anarchist arguments are addressed. As far as I have seen, on this forum, every anarchist argument has been addressed at one time or another. If you disagree, then show us where. But please don't blame us for not addressing anarchist arguments simply because they may have had the last word in a thread. Instead blame anarchists for not knowing when they have been logically defeated. Again, I don't recall if we've ever interacted before so I don't know if you are trying to insult me here or not. Are you implying that I have never actually addressed anyone's claims that I have replied to here and that none of my posts are productive? If you are insulting me, that is a bad way to start a conversation.

I'm not sure which arguments you think they have addressed but they haven't. Well, I guess you could say they have addressed Ayn Rand's philosophical argument against anarchism as well as the church has addressed arguments against the existence of god. So they haven't properly addressed the arguments against anarchism and they never will because they are wrong. Anarchism does not a civilized society make.

I'm sorry to inform you and the OP but there is no such thing as an Objectivist that is an anarchist, those two terms are mutually exclusive. "AnarchObjectivism" is a contradiction in terms. Here is a good thread on anarchism. Anarchists always seem to do the same thing: they equate "initiation of force" with "retaliatory force" and say that the government is initiating force by outlawing it. Which is the same as saying: you telling me I can't rob you is a violation of my rights. It is equating murder with self defense. From another thread here is my 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.

Sorry, that last sentence should read: You argue in favor of the latter in order to NULLIFY the former -- could that have something to do with your irrational beliefs?

You are right, I should have said: There is no other rational way to read what you wrote. This is a complete non-response to what I wrote. I guess I should not be surprised that the irrationality of belief in a god has infected your thinking. Since belief in a god requires no evidence nor do your arguments. The rules of logic and argumentation are nullified in a reality ruled by "the irrational". Nice comic relief though: dogma denounced by a religionist!?!? (You can't make this stuff up). You have no idea how Kim Jong Il died. What evidence do you have that he died peacefully? The words of a lying totalitarian regime? Oh, I forgot, you need no evidence. You have as much evidence about Kim's death as you have for the existence of a god, which is none. He may have been killed by his son and brother to grab power, which wouldn't be unusual. You don't have to be a mind reader: He had his food tasted for poison; He starved millions of people; He murdered many others; He thought himself a god. These are not the actions of a peaceful mind and if somehow he wasn't bothered by any of this, then he was delusional, which also isn't a peaceful state of mind. Actions and words have implications, oh, I forgot, you don't consider implications. I haven't presented my "theory", I have only shot down yours. My position is the same as Ayn Rand's: contradictions do not exist in reality. I know this is not your position, no surprise then that a logically consistent, rational argument is not forthcoming from you. It is clear to me that when Ayn Rand says "nature forbids him the irrational" she is talking about nature as apart from man. This is confirmed by the other quote I provided about what "the irrational" is: "The irrational is the impossible; it is that which contradicts the facts of reality; facts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher." -- Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics "The irrational" is the impossible so clearly it does not refer to the machinations of an irrational mind, to which everything is possible, even possibilities that contradict the nature of reality. Use yourself as evidence of the truth of that statement. Which is it? You weren't responding to the OP or you don't recall? I doubt you "seriously doubt that you changed any meaning". If you thought you hadn't changed the meaning, then you would have said "I didn't change the meaning". As it is, this is an admission that you did change the words and you just don't know whether you changed the meaning or not. Maybe you should find out. You "don't recall" to whom or what you were responding? If you don't remember what you wrote, you can always go back and read it. It doesn't matter whether you "recall", in your first post you quote someone using the words "the irrational" and you then go on to argue against "irrationality". You are putting a lot of energy into defending irrationality. You had to change contexts from nature apart from man where "the irrational" doesn't exist, to a volitional mind where contradictions can exist. You argue in favor of the latter in order to preserve the former -- could that have something to do with your irrational beliefs?

You guys aren't getting very far. Clearly there is such a thing as an accident and the law and prosecutors acknowledge that fact and act on it all the time. As to the issue of who is responsible for a bystander's safety I think you ought to move directly to the most illustrative case: not accidental but intentional. You are threatened with a gun in your shop and the criminal holds a hostage as a shield in front of him. Can you shoot the hostage since your life has been threatened? I'm not sure why a war context has been brought up, and I know this may not be the case today (though there is some argument about that), but in a rational, individualist society, shooting bystanders in war would be allowable. In fact, even targeting civilians in war is appropriate if it is necessary to end the war sooner and save good guys' lives. In the situation above I would say that shooting the hostage to get at the criminal is allowable if your life is threatened (and having a gun pulled on you is a threat to your life no matter what a robber might say to the contrary.)

A sacrifice is: giving up something of greater value for something of lesser or no value. So, properly understood, most parents do NOT sacrifice for their children, they value them. If a parent thinks that it is a sacrifice to help his child with his homework instead of going to the movies, then he doesn't value his child very much. Most parents wouldn't give this situation a second thought, nor would they prefer a Ferrari over a child's needed operation. Most parents understand this and agree with it. The ones who don't, the ones who tell their children that they are sacrificing for them are sending a terrible message. The ones who actually feel that a movie is more valuable than their child are despicable self-esteem destroying tyrants. Obviously, Objectivist parents do NOT sacrifice for their children, nor anybody else.

Typically one supports their argument with evidence so I sincerely doubt this is what you meant when you originally posted: There is no other way to read what you wrote here. You were arguing that nature does not forbid the irrational and using the fact that most people on earth believe irrationally in a god and yet we survive as a species as evidence. If what you meant was that such belief was neutral to survival that wouldn't support your point. Besides, let's be honest, you don't actually believe that religion is neutral anyway right? You believe that it is beneficial, otherwise why would you practice it? Unless you have changed your convictions, which is possible since you have compared religion to theft and other criminal behaviors in this thread. Have you converted back to atheism? If so, congratulations. Hold on, we were talking about a method, a RATIONAL METHOD. That means (from Dictionary.com): 1. a procedure, technique, or way of doing something,especially in accordance with a definite plan 2. a manner or mode of procedure, especially an orderly,logical, or systematic way of instruction, inquiry,investigation, presentation, etc.: the empiricalmethod of inquiry. 3. order or system in doing anything: to work with method. 4. orderly or systematic arrangement, sequence, or the like. Stealing is not a rational plan or method. Again, this is not what is typically meant by "peaceful death". Why would it matter whether a despot died a violent or non-violent death, as long as he died? The way it does work is that brutes and despots do NOT have peaceful minds and do NOT die peaceful deaths. The post is still up, it is the very first post and I see that he didn't attribute the quote, which is a no-no. But that doesn't absolve you AT ALL. You changed the words of the OP and then attacked the change. Will you now admit to your fallacious argumentation? Clearly, as evidenced by the quote I provided earlier, there is a difference between "irrationality" and "the irrational". I find nothing wrong with Miss Rand's usage. All she is saying is that the laws of nature forbids you from jumping to the moon and that you are forbidden from having your cake and eating it too. Which word would you have her use? Prohibit, prevent, preclude? They all have the same flavor. It depends on which theory you are talking about but in this case reality is very simple: contradictions do not exist in reality. I know you want to hold out hope that reality is more complex than that since that is the only way a god could exist but you are wrong.

You have defended religion previously but actually I was congratulating your apparently enlightened attitude in comparing religion to theft and tyranny. But really your opening post is just a jumble of self-contradictions, and that is what I was trying to highlight. Here is where you defend religion: The implication being that religion has some survival value. Of course the correlation you use to make this conclusion is as good as saying that the rooster crowing causes the sun to rise. Here is where you state that irrationality is a rational method of survival: which of course is self-contradictory. Here is another of your self-contradictions: A brute is peaceful? Is english your first language? As far as straw men are concerned, I pointed out your construction of one in my previous post: you changed Ayn Rand's words and then attacked the change. Have you no integrity? Will you not now apologize for your fallacious argument? If not then please hold the insults as they only further demonstrate your impotent small-mindedness.

"The irrational is the impossible; it is that which contradicts the facts of reality; facts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher." -- Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics "If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational." -- Ayn Rand You've changed Miss Rand's meaning. She didn't say nature forbids irrationality, she said nature forbids the irrational. Meaning: there are no contradictions in reality. So for instance wishing to fly won't change the nature of gravity and jumping from a cliff without a parachute will kill you, nature forbids it. Just as nature forbids you from standing in front of a hungry lion while only praying that god save you -- nature will destroy you. Unfortunately we are used to you defending religion but it is a nice change to hear you compare it to theft and tyranny no matter how wrong you are about irrationality being a rational method of survival.

Besides the fact that this isn't true, you've changed your branding of the woman as "immoral" from 12 weeks to 28 weeks, I suppose that's some improvement ... but not much. I can see your position is well thought out. So if a woman wants an abortion after 28 weeks, then you are for either forcing her to be a human incubator or forced surgery? I mean you call it immoral but you go much further than that. Since you are calling it murder, that means you would outlaw all abortions after 28 weeks. Typically, the only abortions performed in the third trimester are to protect the life of the mother. You want to ignore her right to life. You think there is such a thing as Rights being in conflict? Let me inform you, there isn't such a thing. In fact that proposition destroys the very concept of Rights. So now that you've got us living in a dictatorship, what else do you want to force me to do?

Yes, your statements are very strange given Miss Rand's explicit position. Ayn Rand said: "A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." and yet you maintain that: These two positions are irreconcilable. You cannot murder that which has no rights. As to the idea that "essential" means "only" or "to the exclusion of": it is absurd. Accordingly, you must believe that man has no eyes, no thumbs, no hair and consists only of his rational mind since that is his essential defining characteristic. Again, absurd.

Leonid: Please read Ayn Rand: "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). "Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?" “Of Living Death” The Voice of Reason, 58–59 And to complete the passage you quoted: "Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate apotential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . .. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings." Quoting Ayn Rand out of context is the height of fallaciousness -- a tactic usually employed by her detractors. If you can't figure out what her position was by reading the above, then you aren't trying hard enough. She maintained that a woman had the absolute right to an abortion. Elsewhere in the Lexicon she says her position was essentially the same as the Supreme Court's -- so you can read that for guidance. Essentially it says abortions should be allowed in the first two trimesters without limit and that the third trimester presents some questions and difficulties but that with a doctor's ok those should be allowed also, especially to safeguard the life of the woman. Saying that "one may argue about something ..." doesn't imply what you think it does and typically puts the person saying it on the opposite side of the argument than what you are inferring. Also, when she says that the "essential issue concerns only the first three months" she is addressing those who want to outlaw abortion. They like to point to late term abortions but really want to outlaw ALL abortions. So the issue then can easily be decided by determining whether a lump of protoplasm is a person that has rights: it isn't and it doesn't. It also addresses the fact that over 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester and 99% occur in first two trimesters. There is quite a long thread on abortion if you wish to argue further but please don't misconstrue Miss Rand's position, it is absolutely clear.

In an offhanded way you suggested that LP didn't have the integrity to admit when he was wrong. Do you disavow your prognostications and admit you were wrong about what you sneeringly suggested LP would say? Or are you a hypocrite?

All I can say is: you are wrong about him. There is enough evidence in this thread, and certainly on this forum to decide that a "decent discussion" cannot be had with this person. I have demonstrated his intellectual dishonesty in my original post, I have observed his conduct on this forum and I believe he is being dishonest about with you now. At the point of my original post in this thread I perceived no personal attack on myself. I did observe him attack others here and I observed him, and he admitted to, attacking Leonard Peikoff. Leonard Peikoff is a great value to me, almost as high as Ayn Rand and when my values are attacked, I get worked up, so should you. I also value this site and he has attacked its etiquette and rules. I appreciate the effort but it is wasted here. You can't always be friends, or even friendly, with everyone, sometimes you must choose sides.

Yes. No. I address the issue of civility in the first part of my post, intellectual honesty in the middle and Peikoff's podcast at the end, all of which is relevant. I went back and checked to see if I used any ad hominem and perhaps the words "cower" and "polluted" could be construed to be personal (though I consider them implications of what I had already demonstrated with evidence). The rest are his words and a discussion about civility and honesty. Frankly, I haven't read any of your posts until this one so I was not referring to you. And if you weren't "sneering", "prognosticating", "pontificating" or calling for recantations, then I'm not sure how you could think you were implicated. As for the how the discussion looks: that was established before I arrived. Did you also see fit to speak to Ninth Doctor about his ad hominem attacks on other posters and Leonard Peikoff? Grames' interpretation is correct. Did you listen to the podcast? I quoted the appropriate parts above. You must take the podcast as a whole. In the parts I quote Peikoff lays the foundation and context for his later remarks and then he continues to reemphasize that context even in the later portions. For instance at 10:15 he says "She has a moral right to change her mind" Taking people out of context produces a fallacious argument. It is the go-to strategy of not only Peikoff detractors but also Ayn Rand detractors throughout the years. Don't be taken in by such tactics.

While, especially today, there may be an element of the style you attribute to the phrase, in substance and in essence you are wrong. The phrase "I will sodomize you and face-fuck you" and the poem to which it is attributed were meant as abusive personal attacks which offended not only the persons attacked but, for the reasons you cite, the norms of the speakers of that language: civility, if you will. The reason it is significant is for the reason I cited: this person wants to talk about civility. I never said or implied that he is attempting an argument, he isn't. Rather, as you note, this is his personal style, which is relevant to a discussion about civility and its degradation. I get that you want to defend his usage but I can only surmise that you don't want to consider his conduct in toto, either in this thread or the forum as a whole. For instance you give short shrift to your own usage of the word "also" without considering the implications. Also you apparently don't consider his comments to the other poster I cited. Nor do you consider his personal attacks on Peikoff which I cite. Nor do you consider his mischaracterization and misrepresentation of Peikoff's words. Nor do you consider his other attacks on Peikoff on this forum. Nor do you consider the people he sanctions. Nor do you consider his other postings on this forum. I can only say that I am disappointed in your apparent naivete. As for whom you choose to defend, thank you, I am on notice.

What a joke this thread is and now it has turned farcical!!! Now we are talking about civility!?!? And the person who recognizes when another has “crossed the line into incivility” is the person whose signature is "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo" - Gaius Valerius Catullus, which translates to “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”!!! If the irony wasn’t so sad, disgusting and irrational it might be funny. Imagine getting a letter from someone whose signature wasn’t “Sincerely” or “Cordially” or even “Honestly” or “Angrily” but instead they signed “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”!!! Would you ever speak to them again? And what would it say about you if you did? Of course this person cowers and hides behind a dead language, which further demonstrates his character. And if you think that maybe he is just being cute or literarily astute and doesn’t actually comport himself that way, you are wrong. This is how he converses with those whom he disagrees. He has used the same invective in this thread: Can you read how personal and insulting his attacks are? Yes, he is an authority and if it is only in word and not deed, that is bad enough. This is the person who finds LP’s words “horrifying”??? I doubt this person could be horrified by anything. Maybe he was just having a bad day?: Maybe not. This person doesn’t like Leonard Peikoff, is dedicated to his persecution and, as far as I can tell, his only contribution to this site is just that. He admits that this is his motive and has vowed to continue attacking him: The gall of a person who attacks Peikoff’s character and intellect using the words of a known liar and pretender, whom Ayn Rand herself disavowed, is almost immeasurable. The only people who “perpetuate the public image of a Randroid loony cult” are the ones this person sanctions: the Brandens and David Kelley. If you think he reserves himself to only an intellectual attack you are wrong: He has compared LP to Hitler: He has alluded to LP as a King: He admits to comparing LP to a psychotic: To think that you can have a rational conversation with this person about LP is like thinking you can have a rational conversation with the Pope about ethics … And now the crème de la crème. He and another pontiff want those who defended Peikoff originally to recant. Presumably this would show some level of integrity. Where is their integrity when they were both sneering and prognosticating about how Peikoff would defend his statements? When Peikoff does what neither said he would, when he completely reverses himself, they supposedly still find room to denounce him. They can’t admit they were wrong but they somehow find fault in other’s comparable action? Integrity indeed. But maybe he has an intellectually honest point. Maybe, somehow, his character hasn’t polluted his intellect. Not true, here are his questions about what Peikoff said the second time: He is saying that Peikoff’s “position is not clear,” but he has mischaracterized and misrepresented what Peikoff’s position is. Here is what Peikoff actually said: “The woman has a right to say no, a moral right”. Even in the middle of sex, if, for instance (among other things) “something in his desires sexually, in the style of sex he wanted, which turned her off completely” “They all have the right to refuse, and when they do the man has no right to assert himself forcibly” Peikoff’s position is perfectly clear. … But this person hasn’t come here for rational discussion. How can you expect to have a rational discussion with someone who answers you by saying “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”. He disrespects you just by having a conversation with you. If he disagrees with you but maybe you make some good points, he greets your argument by saying “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”. If he agrees with you, he still doesn’t respect you. Like a child he says from his hiding place “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”. Please don’t sanction his behavior any further.

Your question has been answered many times in this thread already, I am disappointed that you haven't availed yourself of the information that is right in front of your face. Believe it or not we get many trolls and irrational religionists who come to this site and give the exact same argument you have. Please forgive us if we don't feel the need to reargue what you want to ignore. Please read the thread and then if you ask politely someone may answer you, particularly if you quote something they have said with which you disagree. Some people involved early in the thread are no longer here but many of us are. I answer one of your arguments starting on page 34, though without the necessary foundation required for a complete argument. So you should also discover "The Ayn Rand Lexicon" here and research the concept of "Individual Rights". Where individual rights come from and how they are justified can be read in Ayn Rand's essay "Man's Rights" found here and is essential to anyone trying to discover the correct answer. And, of course, Rights are grounded in an ethics, so you can find further justification in Ayn Rand's essay "The Objectivist Ethics" found here. This is complicated stuff, you won't ever discover the correct answer to a difficult problem in a single forum entry.

So would you describe us or our consciousness as a "mechanism"? I don't think the facts are so simple, there is something more. Elements are not animated, self-replicating or volitional. There is some emergent property in the whole that does not exist in the parts. I'm not sure how you can be "positive" (as in "certain") about either of these propositions, you called them "highly speculative" before. There is something in the arrangement of the parts, particularly after we have acquired knowledge, something new that didn't exist when we were born, that would be destroyed by such a process. But I'm not much interested in discussing it further, I'll just agree with your former statement and say that I find it highly speculative. Do you agree that concept formation is a volitional process? And that that is something that will never be duplicated by a computer (knowing the definition of what a computer is and does)? That a volitional process is something a non-volitional mechanism cannot (by its nature) perform?

Well I suppose there is nothing in theory that contradicts the possibility of creating a teleportation device that disintegrates humans at one location and reintegrates them at another, but I find that highly dubious also. I'm not sure of where the science stands at this point but I'd be willing to bet that, given what we know, the possibility of a man-made, rational automaton should be relegated to the arbitrary for now -- highly speculative at the least. Your last sentence, while perhaps true, sounds like an inaccurate description to me and frankly a little denigrating. We are greater than the sum of our parts. A human being as a whole possesses properties that none of its parts possess.

Right, we don't have to do it, we must choose to do it or not. We only have to do it if we want to survive. It is an interesting fact that we are the only animals that form concepts. Why do you think that is? If other animals could do it, don't you think they would since it is such a good survival tool. The volitional faculty is the conceptual faculty is the rational faculty. Concept formation is a completely volitional process. First, you must choose to do it, as you say above. Then, when looking out at the world, you must choose to focus your mind. Then you must focus on certain existents as apart from others. Then you must focus on how they are similar and different from other existents. You may choose to focus on certain attributes as apart from others. There are many different ways to solve the same math problem (as an example). Again, just as an example, think of a computer programmer actually creating a new algorithm: there are many different ways to accomplish the same goal in computer programming. Computers are essentially calculators and libraries and are nothing like our minds. Our brains may have a limited capacity for storage (though that limit hasn't even been approached), which is one thing concepts help with, but they have an unlimited capacity to think of new solutions and create original products -- something computers can't do. Computers don't reason. Well, my point was that we create new outputs, which then become new inputs, like electricity or even just new ideas which we then can think about anew. The man-made, once it is made, is part of reality, that is true. But the man-made is a product of volition and didn't have to be, it could have been otherwise. Computers can catalog information into the programmer's categories but it can't create new categories and it can't create new algorithms, creation is a volitional process.