FeatherFall

I have identified the context of post #57 correctly. The statement, y_feldblum made regarding "precisely defined and very limited powers" was in reference to the constitution and it's preamble. Given that the founders explicitly authorized taxation, the document does not promote the protection of individual rights without contradiction. By "the protection of individual rights" they simply could not have meant what Objectivists mean today when uttering the same phrase. Regardless of intent, the founders made mistakes, and David Odden's suggestions would correct many of those mistakes. This brings me to the point I made at the bottom of my last post. If Objectivists were to make a constitution today, or modify the existing constitution, they should not repeat the mistakes of the founders. A glaring mistake in the constitution was to omit from the articles and amendments the idea that a government exists soley to protect individual rights. This should have been made explicit within the working body of the constitution. Omitting it and assuming that people would be able to judge their intent based on the preamble, declaration of independence, federalist papers and other writings from the time, lead to government we have today. Are we to assume that Objectivists are immune to the same problem to which the founders succumbed? What evidence is there that people two hundred years in the future would judge the constitution based on Objectivist theory? Who is to say that more German philosophers of unreason will not infiltrate the country? The only effective safeguard is to make the purpose of government explicit in the basis of law. Incidently, I was not able to determine where in The Ethics Of Emergencies Ayn Rand affirmed the government's immunity to property rights during war time. The article's point was that one should not sacrafice themselves during an emergency. Nowhere did it state approval of the violation of another's rights, nor say that rights are void in some circumstances. I contend that soldiers do have a right to enter homes unasked during a battle at a city. But justification for this is not given in The Ethics Of Emergencies. Justification for this follows from the a government's monopoly on force, and can be invoked only when force has been innitiated in that city or region, and only when intrusions into homes are necessary for retaliation. I have addressed at length where and why I agree with David's posts. It is safe to assume that any suggestion I advocate or agree with can benefit from the light of his suggestions in post #2. On post #36, zynner made a suggestion for self-regulation, which I am very excited about, and agree with. I do not know how this should be worded. I also agree with Captain nate when suggested protection from court stacking in post #38. Wow. I really mean it this time when I say no more championing someone else's ideas. Perhaps there should be an explicit barring of contradiction within the constitution. Maybe the court would need to affirm that a new amendment would not conflict with the rest of the constitution before the process of adoption begins. This may have been what David Odden intended in post #2, but I believe that this should be addressed separately so that it can be made explicit. I have some other ideas for suggestions, but I would like to take some time to review the other threads on politics and law before I post them. I will likely have questions before I make a decision as to post or not, they will probably appear in separate threads. These posts will have to do with the acquisition of territory.

This may be a little off topic, but it does add clarity to the role of family values in the last election. It was my understanding that the polls separated issues like terrorism, the war in Iraq, etc. Therefore, the real main issue (National Defense) was handicapped and got less spotlight than it deserved. I don't have a reference for this anymore, but I remember tallying up the National Defense issues in one poll and it was most important to significantly more people.

The fact that rational, apparently well educated people are arguing the interpretation of the constitution is evidence that supports the claim that the constitution is poorly written. I think many of the criticisms submitted can be cleared up by David Odden's post #2. Suggestion 1-3 would solve the problems referenced in the following posts: #3(Oakes's post regarding the establishment of ideas) When properly interpreted with reference to individual rights, the first amendment bars state sponsored religion and schools. If one has the freedom to express ideas, it follows that one cannot be forced to promote ideas. #6(Coire Fox's objections) The government would not be able to establish pro-active programs if laws are applied to the crucible of suggestions 1 and 2. If I have still missed a dangerous lack of clarity that would lead to a choice as to which provisions (David's suggestions or The Necessary And Proper clause) the government must follow - that still isn't cleared up by suggestion 3 - then I refer you to my suggestion in an upcoming post. #57(y_feldblum's post) In post #59, Felipe raises some good questions. Even precisely defined powers can be limited in a way that violates the rights of an individual. Only a constitutional republic that not only recognizes individual rights, but is based upon them and devoted to their proper interpretation and protection, is just. Our current constitution may have been created with this intention, but a better job can be done. #61 (James Richard's Post) In this post James references the archaicness of language in the constitution. Wouldn't many misinterpretations of the constitution due to time-induced language corruption be cleared up by David's suggestions in post #2? Assuming the preamble to be an authoritative guide to interpretation of the articles of and amendments to the constitution, there is still no guarantee that protection will be given to the right of the individual. Even a government limited to a constitution can be confined to actions that violate rights, such as taxation. Again, David's suggestions in post 2 are helpful to solve problems of intent and clarity. #68 (Captain Nate's census corruption issue) If the census has been corrupted over time, wouldn't it's implementation today benefit from the interpretation guide outlined in David's post #2? Again, I agree with everything David Odden suggests in post #2, but I would like to bring up an interesting point: If government taxation is voluntary then no rights are actually violated by any welfare expenditure. Because the financial burden of a welfare program is likely to overburden the government, voluntary contributors are less likely to give to a state that gives welfare handouts - this makes suggestions 1 and 2 so very important. In fact, it makes voluntary funding dangerous if David's suggestions in post #2 are not adopted. -Enough championing someone else's ideas. Original suggestions and elaborations to come.

The existence of the supernatural cannot be disproved. By it's very nature, it is immune to sensory perception and reason, and is therefore immune to proof. In other words it's arbitrary. In a very meaningful way, it is nonsense. It is folly to believe in something for which you have no evidence. Because atheism is a negative claim, it seems pointless to define yourself by the term, unless asked directly. Synthlord gave some helpful advice regarding atheism in his last post. He was on target when he advised to put forth what you do believe in. I suggest highlighting things like honesty, justice, beauty and the pursuit of happiness. These are things that most people in America associate with religion, and they will be happy to know that someone else believes in them also.

I think it's interesting to note that the guy who made these threats used to be an environmentalist in high school. I've thought for a while that in environmentalism and jihad lies an alliance to happen. The protest culture is rife with environmentalists who invariably support the Palestinian cause.

Viggo has to play Galt, because Ragnar is already taken... By Dolf Lundgren. But, I now am forced to retract Gwen Stefani because I think I'm only allowed one ridiculous suggestion. I still think she still looks good with the 20's haircut. And I think I remember Francisco being paler than Banderas... I had the Banderas skin tone in mind the first time I read the book, but I think I remember a reference where he wasn't that dark... It would be hard to find the page.

In regards to anarchy, it's not the "Anarchists" one has to worry about. It's the statists and thugs who recognize that anarchy is the best opportunity they will ever have that are worrisome, as there is no sizeable organized opposition. As far as the Libertarian Party (LP) is concerned, I too was lured to Objectivism partially through them(My mother is a libertarian). They, like all current parties, allow anyone in, regardless of political philosophy. I usually do not hear libertarians espousing anarchy. But, because they allow anyone in, their platform can be changed by any crackpot with enough pull. Personally, my biggest complaint LP platform is that they do not have a firm stance on abortion. In Wisconsin, during the last gubernatorial election, the candidate for the LP was cozying up to organized labor. I have also had students of Objectivism warn me that, in some states, the LP supports pedophilia. I have yet to see any evidence to confirm this, but I have no reason yet to think untrustworthy the person who warned me, so I keep my eyes peeled.

Personally, I could not continue a relationship with someone who accepts the idea of God on faith. It is not difficult to imagine myself with a Deist, and I have met Deists (unfortunately for me, they were men). That being said, I have little advice that will help you win her back. Regarding you staying with her, if you truly think this is best, good luck. I should offer some advice for what is to come after, if she decides to break this off. I would first like to point out that what you are feeling now will subside so long as you accept that these feelings are temporary. Understand that you have the power to pull yourself out of the funk by recognizing that if she didn't want you, you shouldn't be together. In fact, if she didn't want you and you stayed together, there would be more pain for the both of you in the long run. I'd bet that this is your first strongly emotional relationship. One, depending on your psychology (I know very little of the subject) these feelings can last for years. My first real relationship ended in a year and a half depression. The majority of this time I spent hoping that we would be together again. Once I accepted that we wouldn't, and began to realize that our values differed, the depression began to dissolve. I still think about it every day, but there is no longer any pain, only pleasure.

I don't think the post is irrelevant, and I have an idea about why Dagny chose John over Francisco. I believe that Dagny realized that Francisco's values didn't match with hers, and that John's did. When John galt left society, did he destroy his machine? No. He simply realized that nobody would know what to do with it. He recognized that it wouldn't be of value to the looters. This is, essentially, the conclusion that Dagny came to. Francisco, on the other hand, couldn't bear the idea that the looters would somehow benefit from his family's and his own creation. He set about destroying it. He could have came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth the trouble, and attempt to convince Dagny to come away to Atlantis (that's what John Galt did). If Dagny assumed that their values differed, she would be right. If their values matched, then Dagny would also have the same desire to see Taggart Transcontinental completely ruined before going off to Galt's Gulch. She was not interested in denying the enemy succor. She simply wanted to live her life, and let the death of the railroad run it's course naturally, just like Galt's generator. Maybe she felt betrayed by Francisco because she thought he was betraying himself?

I have had some experience talking to Communists. If you are actually interested in convincing them, you have to be in it for the long, arduous haul. This is probably not worth it unless you are friends with them or have some time on your hands... And yes, I have some friends who are red as tomatos. Some communists are christians, some are atheists, some have other beliefs. You will always have to argue that altruism is not the proper role for man. With christians, this will be very difficult. You have to convince them that their savior inverts justice. I actually heard a preacher on a television commercial say something like, "Jesus takes blame for things he hasn't done, so that you can take credit for things you don't deserve." The preacher said it with all sincerity and it was chilling. Basically, you have to contend with people who implicitly deny justice at a fundamental level. It may be easier to convince them that religion is arbitrary. Otherwise, there are all sorts of economic attacks that you will have to deal with. And they won't come as one integrated whole. They will come as a deluge of separate ideas that are not contextually linked. And it will often come emotionally charged. I usually only hear, "Communism is a great theory, but doesn't work in practice" from non-communists. To this, I usually point out it is flawed in theory because it is based on the unearned. Again, it enshrines altruism and forces injustice. Most of these people won't take it past the moral argument, if they even take it on at all. Actual communists usually reference Norway as an example that "works." If you seriously want to try to help the communists to a better theory, it will require identifying all of the reasons one might have for supporting Communism and dealing with them piecemeal. You must also counter them with an integrated argument based on moral grounds, supported with economic evidence. This won't be easy. There is another approach you might be better off with. Simply express that you support Capitalism moral grounds, and leave it at that. Explain what your grounds are, if you have to, but don't waste your time with Norway or anything else.

How about Altruism and Rational Self Interest? You may have to be persuasive regarding the "every day use" of the last one.

Burgess is right. Use a different approach. I've done some more thinking. My advice, before you read any more of this post, is to check The Morality of Sex with the Ideal Partner if you haven't already. It's one of the Recent Egosphere Entries list. Now that you are done reading, ask yourself, do you really think your values match? If not, you are looking for the wrong woman. If they do, consider some valid reasons for not dating you. Does she have her heart set on someone else? Does she think you hold values that run contrary to hers? Do you have a relationship that would be compromised by romantic interaction - for instance, do you have the same employer? Is she about to move away? You would know better than I, so do some thinking. It helps to realize that she could have done it for the best reason. If ANY reason for not dating you could be valid, then you have to accept that. There is no use in wracking your mind over something you will not know definitively. This is something I've learned from experience. However, if you don't like Burgess's advice, and you have evidence that she may be making the wrong decision and hurting herself for it, then proceed with the advice from my previous post. Again, do this ONLY if you have reason to believe that she is acting on reason, and that her reasoning is flawed. Now I can go to bed knowing that my advice isn't completely faulty.

Nobody knows but her, so ask her out again. When she declines, demand to know why in a non-threatening and confident tone. Keep this up until she goes out with you, tells you why she won't, or stops talking to you. Hey, sometimes persistence wins out. But if she tells you to stop then, seriously, you must stop.

Her music may be spiraling past disaster. It was tolerable during the No Doubt years, however that BANANAS song makes me want to end it all with a rusty spoon. And, like I said, she may not be able to act. But I think she could pull off the Dagny look. Have you seen those videos where she's doing the roaring 20's look?

How about a choice between Achilles and Batman? Or the vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac and the Grammaton Cleric John Preston? These choices have better aftertastes, but I still say new talent. I think a John Galt might be easy to find. Harder decisions await the characters of Midas Mulligan and Ellis Wyatt. Who I'm really interested in is Dagny. Gwen Stefani can't act, can she? Sorry for getting off topic.

The books you give your brother first depend on his interests. If he is not into fiction, it is best that he waits for The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged until he is familiar with Objectivism. This will allow him to relate what he has learned to the plot, and will be more enjoyable if he comes to agree with Objectivism. If he is passionate about politics, give him VoS or C:UI. Otherwise, OPAR and ItOE are good choices, since he is into heavier reading.

Donnywithana had two main problems, based on the premise: An Objectivist society is a meritocracy. Problem one: Inheritance conflicts with meritocracy. Problem two: Monopolies exists in an Objectivist society - wich conflicts with the idea that this society is a meritocracy. Objectivism proposes a society based on individual rights. Primarily, the political system based on individual rights is concerned not with merit, but with justice. If all men are rational, this will lead to a meritocracy. But this is secondary, and even merit can be interpreted differently, by different men. It is important to note that, once someone acquires property, the sole responsibility for dispensing with that property lies with the owner, whether or not the beneficiary has merit. But merit, in this case, is determined by the benefactor - It is not just to force the benefactor to choose to make decisions regarding the distribution of property after death, using someone else's values. This leaves the benefactor free to make decisions as he sees fit; on non-political, non-economic merit, such as the familial value a father places in a son, if he so chooses. This, I believe, addresses your first problem. Your second problem regarding the monopoly, is based on another the false premise: economic pressure is equivalent to political pressure. In other words, business strategies are tantamount to coercion at gunpoint. True coercive monopolies exist only by government sanction. The only way a company can use force to expand and control it's market share is with government permission, or through government neglect. In an Objectivist society, coercion is banned from economic activity. Example: While one person might be disappointed that he can't sell the best chairs at a high price because of a larger companies business tactics, the consumer will still benefit from cheaper chairs. Isn't a company that sells cheap furniture "getting by on it's merits?" Regardless of how you answer this question, nobody's rights are being violated, and people still have the opportunity to buy higher priced chairs of better quality if they want to. I also suggest reading Objectivist material on the nature of market value. I gave a quick scan of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal but I couldn't find it. If anyone could find that reference it could be helpful for Donny. -Edited for punctuation and clarity.

There was an episode of the Beavis and Butt-Head spinoff, Daria, that mentioned Ayn Rand. I don't remember the exact quote or episode, but it amounted to the main character, Daria, referring to Atlas Shrugged as a book intellectuals read. Daria is an intellectual loner who reminds me of a friend I had in high-school - the same friend who claimed to have read Atlas Shrugged in one day. Maybe she didn't lie, but I don't see how one could comprehend it in such a short amount of time.

I think Galt should be played by new talent. Does anyone honestly know of an actor who can put on a face devoid of pain or fear or guilt?

He might have blinked. I've witnessed claims of 24 hour eyeball murder sessions. Personally, it took me several weeks to finish it the first time. I'm a slow, meticulous reader. Anyway, welcome Felix.

It's true, we don't have to debate with each other. But we can't "me too" each other on a forum for learning about Objectivism. His ego is too healthy for that, and I'm here to expand my knowledge Objectivism and sharpen my pen. So, I think debate will be fun... Once we find the right topic. We could debate who is the greatest Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle (I say Donatello , or Usagi Yojimbo if were talking additional characters) but this wouldn't be the right place.

It was my understanding that Objectivism, explicitly, is the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, which Objectivists hold as true based on their own evaluation of it in reference to reality. That being said, in order to expand on Objectivist philosophy, one must agree with the foundation that Ayn Rand made explicit. So in this respect, some of what your brother said may be true. But don't let anyone confuse agreement with Objectivist philosophy because they believe it to be true, with agreement because Ayn Rand said so. I should probably try to address a question that may come from this, and I don't know if I will give the correct answer. It might confuse the issue, but here it is, how does one determine what is accepted Objectivist philosophy when considering new creations, after the death of Ayn Rand, that cannot explicitly be sanctioned by her post mortem? Also, what determines the official the Objectivist stance when two Objectivists disagree? I believe the answer to the first question can be easily answered. New theory is accepted when it is a philosophical idea that logically follows from Objectivism, or that can be incorporated with Objectivism without contradiction. The second question is more difficult to answer, because it involves the evaluation of each opposing idea to determine a few things. First, is there truly a contradiction between both ideas? If not, they can both be accepted if they both do not contradict with the current body of Objectivist work. Second, if only one is correct, the contradiction in one idea must be identified and dismissed. Again, if it is found that both conflict with the current accepted body of work, both must be dismissed. Any party that continues to hold the validity of their new idea when it has been shown to contradict Objectivism must cease calling themselves an Objectivist. Again, while your brother may be close to correct in some way, he is way off base in concluding that Objectivism is accepted on authority alone. There is a growing community of people ready to check and re-check any addition. I hope this addressed your question appropriately, Rob.

Thanks, SoftwareNerd and Jennifer. Any debate we are to have will happen in the debate section. The hardest part will be finding something we disagree on that's worth debating.

Abrasiveness and bullheadedness seem to be ok here as long as you bow to reason and tact. I don't foresee a problem. Just limit your causticity to the realm of argumentation.

Why hasn't anyone suggested that one of the reasons so many young people are on this forum is that Objectivist culture is growing? If I missed it, I apologize. At least one of my friends is now an Objectivist, and some others are familiar with and agree with many of Ayn Rand's ideas. We were friends prior to our familiarity with Objectivism, and we learned about it separately. I've also met young Objectivists at a local coffee shop. Some people I didn't believe, but a few seemed sincere. This is quite an accomplishment outside of an academic setting, especially considering that I grew up in a place as small as Green Bay, Wisconsin. Again, my personal experience leads me to believe that, while other factors may contribute to the lack of age in the forums, Objectivism is growing. As with any philosophy or creed, growth starts with the young. I would be willing to wager that it's due to the efforts of the Ayn Rand Institute and other New Intellectuals. I am 21, and though I haven't started college yet, I plan on being one of those "New Intellectuals."