MNRfan

What is the Objectivist stance on the nature vs. nurture debate? I understand that free will is primal, but does this necessarily mean that a person is not born with greater abilities and aptitudes in some areas than in others? And if a person is born with such greater attributes, would the differences be only due to prenatal environmental factors, or possibly to genetic causes? How does this effect free will?

Societies don't make decisions; only men do. To quote AR "Man is a word with no plural." With regard to the debt, a group of men may force everyone to help pay it, as is happening now. (immoral) They may take it all on themselves voluntarily. (illogical) Or they may default. (only moral and logical option) Of course, if there's a crisis of hyperinflation or the government falls, it may be easier to repay a few trillion worthless dollars. Remember after WWI when the mark traded at something like 1,000,000,000,000 to the dollar?

One problem with donations is that they lead to favortism. Say one citizen donates 1 million dollars anually to the government and another donates nothing. Which will the police be more apt to protect? Moreover, by Objectivist philosophy, the police should protect the benefactor more, because it is in their interest to defend those who pay their salary over those who don't. Donations turn into service fees that unless you pay them, you get no protection, and if you do donate, you get protection in proportion to your donation. Why not just privatize the police?

Well I just finished it and was satisfied with the ending, though I regret that it was somewhat bittersweet. Also, I wish there had been a sequel. There's alot more French history in that period to observe, and there are characters to keep up with, though Hugo does a fairly good job of tying it up. Oh well, a great book all in all.

False analogy. Real Communism is impossible. Real Libertarianism is not impossible. The conclusions of Libertarianism and Objectivism are the same, I don't think that's being disputed here. What some O'ists here have a problem with is the metaphysical defense Libertarians use (or don't use). First of all, what is NAMBLA. Second of all, can you quote a source saying they are associated with an organization bearing that acronym? I've looked through the Libertarian website and can't find any references to it. If NAMBLA is some pedophilia proponent, I will reiterate that any such association is against Libertarian philosophy and a blatant distortion of Libertarian ideas. There's nothing fallacious about it, consciousness does imply existence. It does not imply subjectivism, in fact DesCartes said it didn't. Maybe Ayn Rand didn't use the same construction, I don't know. If not, I'd be interested to see why she thinks existence is self-evident. What exactly does DesCartes' existence premise have to do with rejecting the Libertarian Party?

I take self-ownership as a premise. To be honest, I don't remember how Ayn Rand derived self-ownership from the Cartesian premise of existence, but if someone would care to refresh me, I'd be grateful. Assuming I agree with the derivation, then there's really nothing to argue about except the conclusions. With specific regard to pedophilia, Libertarians would see it as a violation of the child's self-ownership. If a pedophile argues consentuality, a Libertarian (along with most other people) would counter that the child's mind is not competent to make the decision. As such, the ignorant decision of consent is in fact an act of force against the fully developed person that the child will become, because the future adult is the only one with the right to decide how to use its body. As the adult does not yet exist, the child is left in the care of a guardian who has the right to care for the child and protect, but not to infringe on its rights or do it violence. I use similar premises to defend a pro-life stance, though most Libertarians are pro-choice.

thank you for that clarification Please don't quote the entire post directly above yours--JMeganSnow

It certainly was written for a French audience. How about that rant on how Paris is the king of the world and determines what the rest of the world does. And on the note of historical names, who the heck is this Napolean fellow?

The self-evident premise of natural rights theory is the right of self-ownership. A person owns his own body and mind. From there, property rights and a support of the free market are derived. It's very much a priori. As far as Libertarians having a mixed economy mentality, I'm sure some do. Many do not. There is a faction of Libertarians that is highly ideological and uncompromising. They are the proper Libertarians. As far as pedophilia, Libertarianism abhors it. Any Libertarian argument supporting the right to molest children is a vile distortion, is not logically consisted with Libertarian ideology and is opposed by the vast majority of Libertarians.

So I've almost finished reading Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. I'm enjoying it aside from the ridiculous length and tangential ramblings. Anyway, I started reading it because I heard Hugo was Rand's favorite author and I was interested in getting a fresh perspective on her. Some reasons I think she liked him: his deep respect and reverence for the human spirit, especially its infinitely depth; his respect for industry as seen in some passages regarding M. Madeleine; his support of popular revolution and belief in the rights of the people; some others I can't think of right now. A few things seemed decidedly anti-Randian though: his belief in God, which isn't a belief in religion, he has long passages on his disdain for organized religion and monastacism. His belief in God seems to be a belief in the infinite. God to him seems almost to be the highest potential of man, which seems to be the kind of God Ayn would support. Also, he seems to have a deference for altruism and generosity. The examples of this are so numerous it is pointless to list them for those who have read the book. For those who haven't, take my word for it, they're there. It makes me wonder if it is altruism per se that Rand rejects, or if it is just the belief that one is obligated to give, or the belief that one is entitled to gifts. I don't know, can anybody shed some light on this?

Libertarianism is properly based on the natural rights philosohpy of John Locke, which to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) is consistent with Ayn Rand's ideas. Some people commonly considered Libertarians (Milton Friedman, FA Hayek to some extent) use utilitarianism as their base. Utilitarianism is logically flawed and should not be a defense of any system, including Liberatarianism. If Libertarians are using these arguments, they're distorting the Libertarian basis. I do not know of any major Libertarian scholars who claim that capitalism is right because it is the will of God. A minority of Libertarians are religious (when I say that I mean intellectual Libertarians, not the masses that populate the local parties).

Do you mind if I ask why you say that? How is a government chosen under a capitalist political system? If the government is private, it isn't a government. Libertarians have no objection to voluntarily financed organizations that protect rights and uphold moral laws.

They are on the forefront of altruistic fascism. In their own words, "It is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner by desire for gain" -- implying that monetary gain is evil. ************************ Just because they say that their motive is not monetary gain, they are not saying monetary gain is evil. If I buy some land and start an apple orchard, am I implying that the growth of oranges is evil?

As long as we're going old school, how about Angie Dickenson, circa 1959? To anyone who hasn't seen it, I'd recommend the film Rio Bravo, with her and John Wayne. She looks absolutely beatiful. Not too thick or thin, fair skin, and a killer smile. Really seductive, flirtatious character in that film too. Beautiful woman.

As an aside, synthlord, can Bill Gates risk losing control of Microsoft? Yes, as CEO he may in theory be liable to a board of directors, but as the majority owner he controls the board of directors. If they fire him, he can elect a new board that will appoint him as CEO. Are there any checks on majority owners of corporations?

It is the right of the companies to spend money as they want to. Who decides if the money will be a waste? If you think anyone but the owner of the money gets to make that decision, that's a violation of Objectivist property rights. As a corollary, companies have the rights to take risks. Property rights aside, if every risky investment were prohibited by a government because it is a "waste," then where would the economy be? The laws that would properly govern space should be the same laws that SHOULD govern every other piece of land or ocean, these being natural law. According to natural law and the Homestead Principle, property rights come into existence as soon as someone occupies or improves a given space. Therefore, if a company builds a colony on the moon or builds some sort of fixture, they own the moonland that whatever they built covers. see #1. I think it would be awesome if there were space colonies in my lifetime, though I don't foresee it happening. p.s. I hope this is the right place for this topic. [Edited for capitalization. Matt] (Fixed quote-blocks. sNerd)

I agree with gags. If you produce a pollutant that reaches onto another's property, you are responsible for removing it at your own expense. Of course, you may make agreements with the property to compensate them without removing the pollution. Environmentalists should take head. If property rights were respected, companies would be alot more environment conscious, because of the expenses they would incur from having to clean pollution or pay off the property owners, who would be much more difficult to appease than a disinterested government.

I've always read alot of fiction literature. For a long time, my favorite author was Jack Kerouac, and I loved the ideal of the rootless traveler. I still enjoy his writing, but don't think it's a good way to live. Anyway, I was looking through the bookstore for something to read and I noticed The Fountainhead. I'd heard of it before, though I had no idea what it was about. So I read it and loved it. I read Atlas Shrugged next, followed by Anthem and We the Living. I like the writing style, it's entertaining and thought provoking fiction. I don't agree with everything Ayn Rand thinks, so I'm not an Objectivist. In her fiction though, I thought the basis was on the basics of capitalism, individual thought, the error of an assumption that one has to help others. In those books, I didn't catch on to the details that I don't agree with, so I considered myself an Objectivist for awhile. Now I just integrate some of her ideas into my own philosophy. She was a great thinker, no doubt.

I've read Ayn Rand say with reference to the state of world affairs that "only the right philosophy can save us," and that previous proponents of freedom did not fight the battle where it needed to be fought - on philosophical grounds. I was wondering what she meant by this. I've thought of two possible meanings. 1) She thinks that philosophy and a belief in justice are at the core of any argument for a capitalist system and any non-philosophical arguments are secondary. or 2) She thinks that philosophical arguments are the only ones capitalists should make, that any arguments about economics, psychology, history, etc should not even be made. Which of these two (or a third I haven't thought of) did she mean when she said "only the right philosophy can save us"? I know one of the major reasons she hated Libertarianism was that Libertarians didn't have a solid philosophical basis. I know that Nathaniel Branden had an essay about the fallacies behind capitalism in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," which could be considered to be written in economic arguments, but I also know that she latter disassociated herself from Nathaniel Branden. If she believed the first of the two alternatives, then I would agree with her. Philosophy and a love of justice are at the base of a love of capitalism. If she meant the second, I must disagree, because I see great value in ideas from economics and other spheres, so long as they are secondary to the philosophical basis. For instance, Marxists proclaim that capitalism will relegate most of humanity to a state of eternal poverty and oppression at the hands of the wealthy minority. Now, if I listened to Marxists and I agreed that this was the natural course of capitalism and that my descendants would be poor and oppressed for all eternity, I probably wouldn't care too much if the rich had the right to oppress them. Fortunately, I know better, that capitalism will lead to a dynamic economy with benefit for everyone except sloths and government beaureacrats. So I think there is something economic arguments can accomplish something that philosophy can't. I don't know what Ayn Rand thought. I'm hoping someone here more familiar with Objectivism could help me out here.

Perhaps I don't fully understand what a legal tender law says then. I thought they said that a purchaser can force a seller to accept the tender in exchange for the seller's goods. Can anybody clarify what if this is right, or if it's not, what a tender law actually is? As you say, you can write contracts, so you can fix the form of repayment upon issuing the liability, thus solving your first problem. Another issue is that, according to Objectivism, this isn't a valid function of government, as it doesn't have anything to do with justice, prevention of violence, or defense. Also, the government has to pay to enforce the law, which only creates more tax coercion. >>>Quote edit again. Welcome to the forum, MRNfan, btw. Why not post an introduction if you haven't already? We love to hear about our members.--JMeganSnow<<<

I trade my gold for silver and give it to him. In time, a standard currency evolves that all people will accept. That's how the first currency came into being. There were no laws saying you had to accept gold or silver in exchange for goods. First a few people agree on a medium of exchange and it spreads, pretty quickly actually. Aside from the economic and historical fact that private currency will work, there is the ethical issue of force and rights. What gives a government the right to force you to accept something you may not want, be it coins or scraps of paper or whatever, in exchange for your rightful property?

Great post nimble! To anyone interested in monetary policy, I'd recommend Murray Newton Rothbard's "What Has Government done to our Money?" It's about the nature of money as a commodity, just like any other commodity, whose purpose is to mediate exchange, and the various methods government uses to control the economy through the money supply. As nimble says, it is a common misconception that it matters how much money there is in an economy, because it does not change the amount of real goods. Aside from legal tender being a way for the government to initiate force, it allows them to give economic advantage to their preferred citizens. When they print money, it goes through the Fed to the member banks, and the member banks can then lend it to whomever they want. Of course, the increase in the money supply creates inflation, but inflation does not take effect immediately, it takes the market time to adjust. When the first debtors receive their loan from the FDIC member bank, they gain an economic advantage, while the rightful owners of money see their wealth diminish in value. >>>Edited to remove superfluous quote--please don't quote the entire post directly above yours--JMeganSnow<<<