RationalEgoistSG

I have tried my hardest not to engage in "debates" with these neo-hippies and all such people who are not open to reason. Thankfully, I have not had such experiences with the neo-hippie crowds (mainly because I do not go to any parties whatsoever). Actually, I did have one experience with one of the neo-hippies where he actually listened to everything I said without crying about a lot of nonsense (mainly because I treated him with a calm manner and reason I think.) One area where I have experienced things such as you are talking about is in my classes. Whenever the professor asks the class to discuss a certain topic, I always jump on the opportunity. This has happened in such classes as Intro to Sociology, Intro to Ethics, History of Modern Philosophy, Business Ethics, etc. The majority of time that I made comments, either the professor disagreed, the majority of the students, or usually both. They have never disagreed with a rational argument, but rather something along the lines of, "how can you possibly say something like that," or "such a foolish attitude, but don't worry, you'll grow out of it [Rand]." I've had entire classes (and professors) laugh at me, gang up on me, the works. I remember one time in Intro to Sociology I suggested that there should be no welfare, social security, or government involvement in education (that was fun, haha). I have experienced EXACTLY what you are talking about with my former friends from high school. It amazes me how people are so willing to evade reality because they think that wishing something is so (such as being happy) will make it so. I've experienced, at first, annoyance towards my ideas, which then evolved into pure hatred towards me on the part of my old friends. My ex-girlfriend, who I went out with for 10 months, was furious that I pronounced moral judgment on others (what an absolute waste that was). I don't particularly want to fathom why such people exist, but this is my idea as to why: Most people do not properly understand that a wish alone will not make something in reality true. Most people believe in some sort of fate, destiny, divine intervention, or some other variation of "everything happens for a reason." Because of this, when most people want something, they believe that their wanting that thing will SOMEHOW put into motion that which is required to achieve it. I believe that either all or parts of this attitude are the cause of what you and I have experienced. They do not want to expend effort by thinking about what is required to achieve what they want, because they believe that they will get what they want SOMEHOW. Why expend effort when I'll get what I want based on following the crowd or praying to God? So yes, I've had many of these experiences, and I try very hard to avoid them wherever possible. I refuse to engage in a debate with a nonsensical moron unopen to reason. Any such attempts are a waste of my time. Unfortunately however, there are not all that many people who are open to listening to a rational argument. P.S. I always laugh extremely hard when I see someone wearing one of those shirts that say Independent all over it. Those really crack me up!!!

Hello fanofayn, I must say that I have experienced very similar attitudes where I go to college: Drew University in New Jersey. The student body (which is very small) is generally apathetic and conformist and therefore leans to the left. Thankfully, there aren't any very large group of idiots in a club or a newspaper, although one of the schools of the university is a graduate school in theology. I have experienced a few examples of the "you'll grow out of it" phenomenon, mostly from professors who do not have a full knowledge of Rand's ideas outside what is commonly known. However, I have had some good experiences with the majority of my professors in terms of Objectivism, at least, their appreciating the fact that I study extremely hard and use my independent mind (as opposed to the majority of the student body). I have received some resistance from a group of people I like to call the neo-hippies. I too attempted to start an Objectivism club, and so I posted flyers all around the campus. One of them was a quote from Rand about nothing being worse in a culture than moral agnosticism. In response to this, the neo-hippies stole one of these posters and put it up next to a poster of their own that they made, with a quote saying, "Moral indignation is nothing but jealousy with a halo." Oh, so I suppose my moral indignation of murderers is due to my jealousy of wanting to be them? LOL. I do feel quite sorry for the majority of people there, it still amazes me how easily people give up their minds and follow the crowd.

Thanks for the vote of confidence! Unfortunately, there seems to have been some sort of glitch in this website post, and it deleted all of the posts from May 26-June 4 or something like that. So I don't know if you were able to read those arguments in that time period or not, but thanks!

Wilderness, For future reference, my name is Steve, so you can refer to me by that name. Thank you for the complement regarding the expression of my ideas, I appreciate it. As far as the subject of treason goes, I do not know what exactly would be considered treason by an objective government. You should keep in mind that the majority of writings about government by Objectivists concern the fundamental philosophical principles behind what a proper government should be, not an in-depth formulation of every aspect of the ideal governmental system. As a result, there are a lot of minor details which would need to be worked out if this form of government were to be created. However, I think the purpose of writing the material on government (at least for Rand) was establishing the philosophical foundations required to begin to determine the exact objective laws present in the system. Based on the principles defining the function of government that Objectivists have written about however, I can speculate that treason would be defined as purposefully causing extreme harm to the institutions of government (military, police, law court system). I'm wondering, what books on Objectivism have you read? I'd just like to know what level of experience you are working at. Have any college education or in college now? Steve

Incorrect. I refer you to Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: "By its nature, government has a monopoly on the use of force. In a rational society, individuals agree to delegate their right of self-defense; they renounce the private use of physical force in self-protection (except during those emergencies that require that action at once, before the police can be summoned). If a society is to uphold man's rights, such delegation is essential." [Emphasis mine] Also incorrect. the constitution of said government is a system of OBJECTIVE laws under OBJECTIVE control. The formulation of said government is not primarily based on the subjective whims of the people, and said government is not kept in power by the subjective whims of the people. The government is formulated based on a completely objective system of laws and rights in which said system is placed under objective control. However, only a group of citizens can give the power to this government for its formulation in the first place. But this DOES NOT mean that any single aspect of the government is based on subjective decrees from the citizens. What keeps said government in check is an objective system of checks and balances designed to require the government by objective law to only act in certain ways. Neither "the will of the people" nor "the citizenry's own arsenals" are the primary means of checking the power of said government. Also incorrect. Said government would not be funded by those people who do not believe in a free lunch. Said government would be funded by those who want the services of the government (police, military, objective law court system.) You don't pay for the service, you don't get the service. Perhaps this is what you meant when you said the government is checked by the will of the people. (However, I note that it is possible that said government could be funded by requiring payment merely from voluntary donations and a charge for legally insuring contracts, as Ayn Rand suggested as a possibility.) Wilderness, you seem like you understand at least partially what a proper government is, and you might be trying to advocate the same proper government that Rand did (from one post I can not tell.) However, you need to be extremely careful with your choice of words and arguments, because I have just demonstrated three ways in which what you said violates the definition of a proper government according to Objectivism. I might add this quote: "If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with — and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own.” Rand Objectivism is a closed system. Either you agree with the philosophy of Objectivism, as Rand created (which she had FULL rights to the use of that name and now Peikoff and ARI have the FULL rights to the use of that name) or you don't and you're NOT an Objectivist. If you do consider yourself a student of Objectivism, don't make claims about what an Objectivist government is or isn't without being very sure of what you are saying. This does not mean that one needs to be omniscient about what Objectivism is, but just be committed to properly identifying the philosophy and correcting any error you make (as I will do if there is any error in what I have said).

Yes AshRyan, I agree.

It seems to me that you are essentially saying this: 1. Rand advocated the NAP. 2. Rand advocated a government which has a monopoly on the use of force. 3. Creating and maintaining this form of government requires the initiation of force. Therefore, the government that Rand advocated goes against the NAP and is a contradiction. Am I correct in saying that this is your basic argument? If so, then there are two things that you are failing to do: 1. recognize the distinction between the initiation of force and the use of force in self-defense 2. give me an example in which a person's rights are violated when a government holds a monopoly on the initiation of force This form of government does not force anyone outside of its control to do anything. The only time that this government deals with people outside of their control is when those people initiate the use of force. Your failure to make the distinction between the initiation of force and the use of force in self-defense is critical here. This form of government that Rand advocated has a monopoly on the initiation of force, meaning, it forbids it from use. If a government of this kind were to form and then it demanded that all people fund it, THEN that would be an initiation of force against those citizens who do not want the protection of the government. Therefore, the only use of force for this government, as prescribed by objective laws, is the use of force in self-defense when people initiate the use of force against citizens of that government. Are you saying that having a monopoly on the initiation of force is an initiation of force in itself and is therefore immoral? If person A living outside of such a government killed person B living in such a government, would you say that it is an initiation of force on the part of the government to arrest person A? You still haven't given me an example of an act of this government which violates the natural rights of any person. Does a person have the right to initiate the use of force on someone else because they have not consented with a central authority not to do so? I believe that it is you that is advocating the contradiction sir.

The proper government that I spoke of does not initiate the use of force against anyone. The only time in which this government uses force is when it is acting in self-defense against those who have initiated the use of force against its citizens. Can you give me an example where this form of government would initiate the use of force against others? "Anarchism is merely the lack of a government--- defined as a central authority that imposes (by force!) a monopoly on the use of force..." First, the government's power to use force in self-defense is derived from the consent of the citizens of that government. Second, Objectivism advocates a central authority that uses force in self-defense and forbids (has a monopoly on) the initiation of force. Therefore, Objectivism and anarchism are incompatible. The problem that I have with the statement "all Objectivists are libertarians by definition" is that libertarians merely advocate the NAP while disagreeing on the justification for the NAP; whereas Objectivists advocate the NAP because of exact philosophical reasons. If you are merely abstracting the advocacy of the NAP then yes all Objectivists are libertarians in that sense. My objection to that statement came from the fact that the two theories differ greatly as to exactly why the NAP should be advocated. Other than that, I don't think it's a very important point to debate further. Do you believe that it is possible to make an error in judgment and advocate the opposite of what you intended? That is what I meant by my arguments regarding David Kelley. He may very well believe that reality should be the ultimate judge of one's ideas. What I was saying with my arguments is not necessarily he believes that reality should not be the ultimate judge of one's ideas but rather that what he advocates leads to reality not being the ultimate judge of one's ideas. I apologize for the poor writing and lack of clarity on the matter. I will never stop talking to a person because they refuse to "pledge allegiance to" me. I am not creating these arguments in the attempt to brainwash a blind follower, and I am not attempting to memorize ARI/Objectivist arguments and re-hash them. I would be insulted if someone said to me, "God said it, I believe it, therefore it's true." I would be equally insulted if someone said to me, "Rand said it, I believe it, therefore it's true." That is not what I am trying to do. What I was saying was I do not wish to continue this disucssion if you believe that my arguments are merely formulated by dogmaticism. The entire point of my continuing this discussion is to try to learn more, and ultimately discover the truth; not to brainwash you to follow some dogmatic philosophy. I want you to analyze my arguments with reason, looking at the evidence, and judging it accordingly. However, I do not believe that your accusation that my arguments are merely memorized dogmatism are fair. I do not believe that one could accurately determine whether or not I am trying to brainwash you with dogmatcism merely from a few discussions on an internet forum. As far as the limits of this forum go, I can only assure you that I am devoted to reason and reality. If you believe that I am not, then I see no reason to continue the discussion. Doesn't that make sense? In response to your query about why David Kelly talking to a bunch of Libertarians was sanctioning evil I can only repeat what I said already: 1. Objectivism holds that a corollary of the axiom that existence exists and the Law of Identity (A is A) is the Law of Causality: that every effect has a cause. 2. The philosophy of Objectivism (in this case, Ayn Rand) "rejects" the notion that there is any split (dichotomy) between cause and effect 3. As a result of this, they reject any variant of the mind-body dichotomy which states that both exist in two different domains or realities and not every effect has a cause. (Many philosophies vary on the degree to which they hold the mind-body dichotomy, but all hold a form of mysticism, that there are at least two separate realities) 4. Every action in reality by a human being's free will (effect) comes about through an idea (cause). 5. Every evil action (effect) is caused by an evil idea (cause). (I am defining evil in the context of what is within man's choice, therefore a cough could not be evil nor a tornado, etc.) 6. Since there is no split between cause and effect, the cause of every evil action is an evil idea. Therefore, if one holds an action to be evil, one must also hold its corresponding idea to be evil. David Kelley, however, claims that we must not hold ideas to be evil, only their actions, which means: we must not hold causes to be evil only their effects. In order to do so, one must advocate the split between cause and effect, which violates a key principle of Objectivism: the Law of Causality. Does this mean that communication with any non-Objectivist is evil and therefore must not occur? No, of course not. Providing rational evidence for the correctness of one's ideas (as was done by Rand in all of her non-fiction work and as is done by Peikoff and ARI) is not evil no matter who reads it, who hears it, or who it is shown to. In those cases, you are attempting to demonstrate the truth based on the best of your knowledge of reality, whic h is based on evidence and proof. That in itself is never evil, no matter who you are attempting to demonstrate it to because in each of those cases you hold rational evidence to be the standard by which you attempt to properly perceive reality. So, if you are arguing with another person about what is exactly the proper perception of reality, that is never evil as long as you hold that the proper perception of reality is formulated ONLY through the use of reason. However, the following two things are evil: 1. arguing with another person and accepting that perhaps reason is not the only way to properly perceive reality 2. claiming that you respect another person's ideas despite the fact that, as it appears to you, their perception of reality is flawed. As far as my knowledge of the views of Kelley goes, he believes that doing the first thing is evil, but not the second. Doing the second separates effects (actions) from their ideas (causes). Kelley separated the evil ideas (causes) which caused evil actions (effects) by saying that one can still respect an evil idea.

The one thing that I hate about correspondence such as this is that it is very difficult, at least for me, to clear up potential misconceptions and errors in what I am trying to say. First of all, when I come up with what I say in response to your posts, I am not looking up Rand's writings and merely re-hashing them. I am taking Objectivism to the best of my knowledge (which I HAVE thought about a lot on my own) and trying to point out the faults in your arguments and what I am trying to say. I also do not appreciate your accusations that I treat Objectivism as a dogmatic religion and I spew out its arguments as such. I never advocate an argument without thinking about it myself and agreeing with it. Please do not insult my intelligence. If you continue to do so, I find no reason to continue this discussion of Objectivism with you. I hate to appeal to authority, but I will do it first and then explain my arguments on my own. Read Rand's essays, The Nature of Government, Man's Rights, etc, in The Virtue of Selfishness. It explains pretty nicely why it is in the self-interest of man to have a government. Now I will explain why on my own. First of all, you equate the government I am speaking of to the government which we have today, which is inaccurate. Your definition of a government is flawed: "Government is an entity designed to force me to live lives of sacrifice for others. That's all government does." That is the definition of an immoral/improper government. And that is the definition of essentially every government in existence today. But that is not the moral/proper form of government according to Rand and according to Objectivism. According to Objectivism, the proper function of government is to protect the fundamental right of every one of its citizens: the right to their own life. This means, that the government is FORBIDDEN from initiating the use of force, it will protect its citizens from the initiation of force, and it will punish those who initiate the use of force. Thus, there are only three institutions of government: the military, the police force, and an objective law court system; all intended to forbid the initiation of force and to punish those who do initiate force. Those acts of governent, to go to war, to throw a man in prison, etc, are acts of self-defense in response to the initation of force imposed on others. To this you would most likely say, that in order for a government to exist, it requires taxation and power, which can only be attained through the initiation of force. For an immoral/improper government, that is the only way for it to maintain power. However, the government that Rand advocated gets its money and power from the voluntary consent of the people. If you want to be protected by the military, the police force, and the objective law court system, you must pay for it. This is not the initiation of force, but rather a voluntary trade between two parties. But, be careful, one could say here then that man's rights only exist if a person buys them from a government. However, that is incorrect. Without getting into an entire speech about man's rights, man's rights exist independently of any government, social institution, or group. Every individual has the right to their own life by their very nature. (I could get into that more but for purposes of this dialogue I am trying to keep it as short as possible.) Therefore, this kind of government is designed to protect the individual rights of each of its citizens and to remove the initiaton of force from all human affairs. Does a man need a government in order to have rights and in order to live? No. But, it is within one's best interest to live under this form of government because it ensures the protection of one's rights. As to what you said about the founding government of this country, it was not the kind of government which I just described. Yes, it was very small, and yes it was very similar to the government I just described. However, because of a few statist elements in the foundation of this country's government (such as slavery, the right of Congress to excise taxes and tariffs, etc) the government's power was able to rise and turn into what we have today. The founding government of this country WAS NOT laissez-faire capitalism, and therefore you can not say that laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work because America didn't work. Thus, the point of all that is, a moral/proper government DOES NOT INITIATE THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST ANYONE. It is ridiculous to say that all governments must initiate the use of force and therefore no government is moral. The kind of government which Rand described DOES NOT INITIATE THE USE OF FORCE. Rand, nor true Objectivists, hold that human beings have any inherent faults which can not be overcome. Therefore there is no aspect of human nature which forbids him to achieve this form of government. Granted, based on current social attitudes of morality and philosophy, it would be VERY difficult to achieve this form of government. But that does not mean that it is an impossibility based on any sort of inherently flawed human nature. How is it ensured that this governent will not initiate the use of force? That is a much larger subject. But, for one thing, since the power/money of a government comes from the consent of the governed, if the governed oppose a statist element in the government they would remove their support. Secondly, this form of government would contain numerous checks and balances similar to the American system of government. This subject would require much more discussion but I think you get the point. The following points of yours are flawed: 3. All governments demand a monopoly on the use of force over their territory. 5. All governments enforce non-objective laws. 7. Taxes are collected by initiating force. It seems to me that you are taking all governments that are in existence today and creating a definition of government based on that, without looking at the other forms of government which are not currently in existence. All governments in existence today do those three things. But that by itself does not mean that ALL possible forms of government must do the same. Next, as I have said many times before, your statement that all objectivists are libertarians is somewhat flawed based on what you said alone so far. Please supply an exact definition of libertarianism and objectivism please. This is my very basic definition of Objectivism, as supplied by the Ayn Rand Institute: Metaphysics: Objective Reality Epistemology: Reason Ethics: Egoism Politics: Capitalism Aesthetics: Romantic Realism I know what these things are, I am a double major in philosophy and political science, and I have thought about them many, many times. As I learn any philosophy, my first goal is to understand the foundations of the philosophy and judge it to be accurate or inaccurate according to its foundations. Please do not insult my intelligence by saying that I do not know what Objectivism is, that I have spent no time thinking about it, and all I am doing is re-hashing arguments made by other people. There is no other way to argue that 2+2=4 than by saying 2+2=4. In the same respects, there is no other way to argue for Objective Reality, Reason, Egoism, Capitalism, and Romantic Realism other than certain exact arguments proving them. The language of these arguments varies, the way in which they are presented varies, etc, but the basic structure of the arguments must remain the same in the same way that the basic argument of 2+2=4 must remain the same. My arguments against anarchism, my arguments against David Kelley, and all of my other arguments, are formulated through the use of my own mind, the use of reason, and the conclusions that I reach are always based on the evidence which I have perceived. I may be wrong about certain conclusions, but in order to demonstrate that I am wrong you can must present evidence. Do not waste my time and your time by saying things like, "Objectivism is not a religion-- do not treat it as one. It is a philosophy that REQUIRES every individiual to come to their own conclusions." If I treated Objectivism like a religion, would I be supplying rational arguments according to all of the evidence available to me at present? As to the David Kelley situation, I will supply my argument for why I believe that he is not an Objectivist, why his ideas are wrong, and why you are wrong. I am presenting this argument to the best of my ability and knowledge, and it is based on all the available evidence that I have collected. If you believe it to be wrong, I ask you to supply me with a counter-argument based on evidence, not saying that I base my arguments on Objectivism being a religion. This is a very basic argument, which could be much more extensive, but for the purposes of this discussion I will keep it basic. 1. Objectivism holds that a corollary of the axiom that existence exists and the Law of Identity (A is A) is the Law of Causality: that every effect has a cause. 2. The philosophy of Objectivism (in this case, Ayn Rand) "rejects" the notion that there is any split (dichotomy) between cause and effect 3. As a result of this, they reject any variant of the mind-body dichotomy which states that both exist in two different domains or realities and not every effect has a cause. (Many philosophies vary on the degree to which they hold the mind-body dichotomy, but all hold a form of mysticism, that there are at least two separate realities) 4. Every action in reality by a human being's free will (effect) comes about through an idea (cause). 5. Every evil action (effect) is caused by an evil idea (cause). (I am defining evil in the context of what is within man's choice, therefore a cough could not be evil nor a tornado, etc.) 6. Since there is no split between cause and effect, the cause of every evil action is an evil idea. Therefore, if one holds an action to be evil, one must also hold its corresponding idea to be evil. David Kelley, however, claims that we must not hold ideas to be evil, only their actions, which means: we must not hold causes to be evil only their effects. In order to do so, one must advocate the split between cause and effect, which violates a key principle of Objectivism: the Law of Causality. Does this mean that communication with any non-Objectivist is evil and therefore must not occur? No, of course not. Providing rational evidence for the correctness of one's ideas (as was done by Rand in all of her non-fiction work and as is done by Peikoff and ARI) is not evil no matter who reads it, who hears it, or who it is shown to. In those cases, you are attempting to demonstrate the truth based on the best of your knowledge of reality, whic h is based on evidence and proof. That in itself is never evil, no matter who you are attempting to demonstrate it to because in each of those cases you hold rational evidence to be the standard by which you attempt to properly perceive reality. So, if you are arguing with another person about what is exactly the proper perception of reality, that is never evil as long as you hold that the proper perception of reality is formulated ONLY through the use of reason. However, the following two things are evil: 1. arguing with another person and accepting that perhaps reason is not the only way to properly perceive reality 2. claiming that you respect another person's ideas despite the fact that, as it appears to you, their perception of reality is flawed. As far as my knowledge of the views of Kelley goes, he believes that doing the first thing is evil, but not the second. According to Rand and Objectivism, justice is never attemtping to separate cause from effect. (I will forgoe going into this further for purposes of keeping this as short as possible.) This concept of justice means that one must never attempt to shield another from what they deserve based on the facts of reality. If one holds wrong ideas, one will act wrongly, and one will not only be responsible for these wrong ideas and actions, but they will pay the price (whatever that may be) for not properly perceiving reality. Human beings, in order to survive and in order to better themselves to the best possible, must properly perceive reality. Thus, if one holds wrong ideas (causes) , the concept of justice holds that that person should receive the proper results (effects). Kelley however says that we should attempt to separate cause and effect (though he propbably doesn't say this overtly) by shielding moral blame for one's ideas. Therefore, Kelley is essentially saying that reality should not be the ultimate judge of one's ideas. You can not get much more un-Objectivist than that! Finally, you make a gross error when you say that supporting the war in any way leads to living for the benefit of others. You make the ridiculous claim (or at least seem to), that any action in which others benefit is evil! Any action in which the primary beneficiary is another is evil. Any action in which the primary beneficiary is yourself, but others benefit as a secondary consequence is NOT EVIL! I don't know what the hell you are talking about when you claim that Rand was a Republican. If you mean Rand is the kind of Republican that exists today, then you are way off. If you mean Republican in the simplest definition: advocate of a Republic, then she is a Republican in that sense, but certainly not in the sense of where any "modern Republican" stands today. I don't know if ARI supports Republican groups, and I would need to know exactly what groups they did sponsor, if any at all, in order to make any sort of judgment on that. As to the war, Objectivists certainly do not support the war wholeheartedly, and as you pointed out, there are many things they hold to be very wrong with it. However, they hold that at least one part of it is a step in the right direction: the assertion of the United States that we have a moral right to self-defense by acting alone, and not appeasing to murderers, dictators, and terrorists. In many ways, the Bush adminstration has not done this fully (compliance with the UN, the rest of their foreign policy, etc.), but the point is that at least they have made a step which is closer to the right direction than previous administrations such as Clinton, Bush Sr. Reagan, and especially Carter. Finally, as I said before, please do not insult my intelligence by counter-arguing what I say by claiming that I hold Objectivism as a religion and therefore spew out its dogmatic principles. Please don't give me that bullshit, and I won't give you that bullshit in return. I have given my arguments for the conclusions that I hold concerning the matters we have discussed. If you choose to continue to deal with me in the manner that I am a dogmatic moron who does not think about anything (which is completely contrary to the evidence presented in my own arguments), then I do not wish to confer with you further.

I forgot to comment on the Objectivist position on the war with Iraq. In one sense, Objectivists agree with America's right to act in its own self-defense, therefore the war with Iraq is justified. However, Objectivists seem to believe that Iraq is not the biggest threat to America (with good reason), and we should not be afraid of civilian casualties in war. Also, as you pointed out, the war is funded by taxpayer money, which Objectivists disagree with. But, Objectivists realize that they will take their victories where they can take them, and should feel at least some accomplishment in the fact that we did actually engage in this war. While there are still a lot of things wrong with it, it's a step in a semi-right direction. Objectivists do not support the war 100%, but rather they support the legitimacy of the U.S. to act in their own self-defense (which is what this war is supposed to be all about.) I'm sure they are not happy that as the war began, its alleged purpose was changed to the altruistic goal of Iraqi freedom. Objectivists severely disagree with U.S. foreign policy for at least the past 50 years, so they are happy when they see the smallest deviation from our foreign policy of the past.

First, as to what you said about Objectivism and anarchism, the two are not compatible. Anarchism (correct me if I'm wrong) advcotes there being no government whatsoever, and like you said, results in pressure-group warfare. Galts Gultch was certainly not an anarchy. It did not embody the same principles of the ideal state/government according to Rand, but that was because it was not necessary in that society. The essential function of the proper government is to protect the fundamental right of all of its citizens: the right to their own lives. Because of the fact that man possesses free will, he requires a government to protect his natural right: the right to his own life. Since every man has free will (which includes the power to be rational or irrational) a government is created in order to protect the rational from the irrational (those who respect man's fundamental right and those who don't.) A government does not grant rights to man, it protects them. Because of this, Objectivism is not compatible with anarchism in any way, which includes all of the anti-concepts such as anarcho-capitalism. Second, I appreciate your carefulness in terms of being wary of dealing with people who merely memorize Objectivism and then spout out everything that Rand said with no idea as to why. I am wary of anyone like that in any philosophical movement. Third, I am unsure as to the distinction (if one exists) between libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. It is definitely something I will research further. My objections to the Libertarian Party, and others like it, is any notion that liberty is a self-evident truth, or rather, an axiom. As I believe Objectivism demonstrates (I will leave out why for the purpose of keeping this short) a philosophical justification is required for the advocacy of liberty. Claiming that liberty is a self-evident truth without philosophical justification is very dangerous for the same reasons that holding that sacrifice to others is a self-evident truth or the existence of God is a self-evident truth. If one holds that liberty must be self-evident, there is no defense against others who say, what if I disagree with this self-evident truth? Or I say that human sacrifice to others is a self-evident truth. If there is no philosophical justification for liberty (brought about through reason), the only other means of instituting and maintaing the society one wants is through the iniation of force, which is in violation of the NAP. Therefore, the NAP becomes self-defeating if it is held as a self-evident truth. Objectivism holds the NAP to be true for numerous philosophical reasons; whereas, as far as I know (again, correct me if I'm wrong), there is no one solid justification of the NAP according to libertarianism or the Libertarian Party. Finally, as to the split in Objectivism, at this time, I do not know enough about it all to be sure of my opinion on it. However, it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong), that David Kelley holds that something is evil only if it is acted upon. If it is debated in one's own mind through the use of reason, then it is not evil. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. If this is accurate, then Kelley propogates a complete separation between ideas and reality. This seems to be the result of a variation of the mind-body dichotomy, which, applied to what Kelley says, means that ideas are separate from their consequences in reality. However, Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy and says that every idea has a direct consequence in reality and therefore every idea must be judged accordingly. Thus, if you hold an incorrect idea (even if it was reached by the use of reason), it will have direct consequences in reality. Also, any evil act must be caused by an evil idea, the two can not be made to be separate. Therefore, since every idea causes an action, every evil idea correspondingly causes and evil action. Now, that's not saying that one must equally condemn every wrong idea. If one were to do that, one would equally condemn the next Hitler and a man who made a simple error in logic. The severity of how evil an idea must be judged should be determined by how irrational (anti-reality) it is. Objectivists recognize that the majority of the people that they deal with hold wrong (evil) ideas. Determining whether or not to deal with these people and try to change their ideas is dependent on primarily two things: the severity of the evil idea(s) and whether or not the person solely uses reason. Kelley accepts the second of these but rejects the first (again, correct me if I'm wrong.) By saying that he is open to dealing with a person who claims ANY ideas, just as long as they accept reason, Kelley is ignoring that all evil ideas have evil consequences in reality; and therefore he is giving moral sanction to the actions that those evil ideas cause. What do you think? I need to do a lot more research on it.

I don't know of any true Objectivists who advocate forceful taxation. However, the paying of taxes by Objectivists in modern society is not immoral because it is not a matter of choice. Anything done by a person forced by the barrel of a gun can not be morally judged. The fundamental necessity for morality is choice, which in the case of forcible taxation, is not present. Therefore, Objectivists who pay taxes are not immoral, becuase morality can not be drawn from actions done as the result of force.

So I suppose that no one can formulate an objective definition of who a doctor is, or a definition of who a philosopher is, or a definition of anything, because we can not define anything on our own terms? Definitions of terms are objective in nature based on the Law of Identity, A is A. Just as you can not claim that A is non-A, you can not claim that Objectivism is non-Objectivism. I would argue that in order to be considered to be a student or a member of a philosophy, you would need to agree with the fundamental concepts of the philosophy. In this instance, the fundamental concepts are: objective reality, reason, egoism, capitalism, and romantic realism. Would you agree with me on the point that these are the fundamental concepts of Objectivism, and that if you disagree with them, you can not properly refer to yourself as an Objectivist? (By the way, when I say you, I am not referring to you personally. You seem to have a good knowledge of Objectivism and you seem to think for yourself so I am not trying to assault you personally.) By holding that rationality is the highest virtue mankind can attain, and reason is the only means of acquiring knowledge, if you were to comply with another person who explicity held the opposite, you would be sanctioning the opposite of your ideas. The reason that I am discussing this issue with you is because, it seems to me, that you believe in rationality as the highest virtue, and reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge. I am appealing to your rationality by presenting an argument of my own, and you are doing the same. If I am incorrect, I am willing to concede that fact, but my incorrectness would be based on a lack of proper knowledge, not the appeal to a higher power outside of reason. I hold the five fundamental concepts of Objectivism to be true, and therefore I refer to myself as an Objectivist. It seems to me that you are failing to make the distinction between an error in knowledge and purposeful evasion. Objectivism does not require that one be omniscient. In order for it to be morally right for me to discuss this with you, I do not need to be omniscient, nor do you. What does have to be there, is the commitment to reason as the only means of persuasion and communication. So, when I discuss this with you, just because you may possibly be wrong does not give moral sanction to those wrong ideas. If discussion with any person that had incorrect ideas was immoral, all communication with others would be immoral because no one is omniscient. Do you see the fundamental distinction? It is moral to engage with a person who is actively pursuing the truth. It is immoral to engage with a person who is actively evading the truth. Secondly, I repeat that Ayn Rand did not write Atlas Shrugged for the PRIMARY PURPOSE of communicating with her potential readers. The communication with her potential readers was a secondary consequence of the primary purpose of illustrating her image of the ideal man. Rand herself said this numerous times. Yes, this illustration of her ideal man included the publication of her works, but the publication of works for others was not her primary purpose. I'll use Roark as an example to demonstrate this. Roark created buildings for the primary purpose of his own selfish benefit. Others were able to benefit from this selfish desire that Roark had to create buildings, and so therefore Roark and his clients engaged in voluntary trade to mutual benefit. Did Roark ever care if others liked his work, or if his potential clients agreed with his work? Did he ever alter his work because of a request from a client? No. His primary purpose was the creation of the ideal. Same goes for Rand. For the whole Libertarianism bit, I was referring to the Libertarian party, and it seems that you were referring to libertarianism, simply meaning the political philosophy of laissez-faire. A simple miscommunication, and my mistake. However, I do hold that the statements made by members of the Libertarian party coincide with what I said about the Libertarians. To believe in the philosophy of libertarianism does not necessarily mean that you believe in the ideology of the Libertarian Party. That was not my intention. Yes, Objectivists are all libertarians in the definition of the word as advocates of laissez-faire capitalism. But Objectivists are most certainly not anything like members of the Libertarian Party. DO NOT CONFUSE FORCE WITH THE LAWS OF REALITY. It seems to me that you are saying that since Objectivism holds an objective definition, it is FORCING that definition onto others and this goes contrary to everything that Objectivism stands for. OBJECTIVITY IS NOT DOGMATISM or INTRINSICISM. If you continue with your line of logic, what right does Objectivism have to claim any objective truth whatsoever? Any claim to objective truth would be "forcing" that truth on other people. (If this is not what you intended, please correct me.) Objectivism holds that truth exists objectively, independent of any one human being. A is A not because the human mind says so, but because A is A outside of the human mind. The human mind, when properly perceiving reality, can identify this, and other truths. The process by which one discovers these truths is reason, and the process by which one convinces others of these truths is reason. One can disagree with the reasoning of the reasoner by pointing out contradictions in the reasoning process, but one can not say that one person is forcing another by attempting to demonstrate the truth. Objectivism holds that men have the power to think or not to think. Objectivism also holds that it is immoral to attempt to force a person to think. Only the individual can decide for himself whether to think or not to think, which means to attempt to properly perceive reality or not to properly perceive reality. This alternative is a requirement of man's nature, and therefore it can not be something that is forced upon another person by another. Therefore, individualism is individualism based on the facts of reality, not by the decree of ARI. You are 100% free to disagree with the reasoning behind ARI's perception of what the facts of reality truly are. But you can not escape the fact that individualism is individualism, A is A. I do not understand this: "There is no tolerance in objectivism for your attempts to force others to live for your benefit-- in fact, that is directly opposed to objectivism." I do not attempt to force others to live for my benefit, I do not attempt to force others to live for their own benefit. If you meant something else by that statement, correct me. I do not know what the NAP is, would you care to enlighten me? Finally, just because I have stated arguments similar to those used by ARI does not mean that I am a blind follower of ARI and I just rehash their arguments. Please do not insult my intelligence when it is not warranted. I happen to agree with the arguments made by Rand and ARI based on my own reasoning and my own thinking. I do believe that it is rather rash to make the judgment that I do not think on my own just from a few lines of text and nothing else. I also find it insulting to make the claim that I am purposefully lying, that is completely unfair. I am committed to the correct identification of reality. I am not ominiscient, I make mistakes. If I have made a mistake in my reasoning now, in the past, or in the future, I will always strive to correct it. Do not make a hasty judgment and do not propogate false assumptions, it is insulting.

I should add to the last paragraph of my previous post that just because you are appealing to the rationality of another person does not mean that you must not pronounce moral judgment on the ideas that the person holds. You should definitely pronounce moral judgment on the ideas that the person holds, but this does not mean that attempting to appeal to that person's rationality is a bad thing. If the ideas that the person holds = an purposeful evasion of reality, then it would be wrong to deal with that person. However, if that person's ideas are due to a mistake in knowledge, if that person is really committed to properly recognizing reality, then dealing with that person is not wrong.

First, I just want to say that the only reason why I did not present an argument in the first place was because I have no idea about the extent of your knowledge of Objectivism and the things involved in the discussion. If you have read both of those two essays I described, these would be my arguments against what you said in the previous post. When Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, her primary purpose for writing was not for the benefit of her potential readers whatsoever. Her purpose in writing was to illustrate the ideal man. HER PURPOSE IN WRITING WAS NOT TO "REACH-OUT TO NON-OBJECTIVISTS." Everything that she developed was a consequence of this purpose, including her entire philosophy. She realized, that in order to illustrate the ideal man, she would need to determine the ideal philosophy for the ideal man to hold, and thus Objectivism was formed. To be an Objectivist per se, you do not have to agree with everything that Rand said, I agree with you on that point. HOWEVER, to call yourself a student or a member of any philosophical movement, you MUST agree with the fundamental principles of the philosophy involved. Just as you wouldn't call yourself a doctor if you didn't treat patients, you wouldn't call yourself an Objectivist if you reject any of their fundamental principles. By DEFINITION, all Objectivists ARE NOT LIBERTARIANS. Libertarians hold that liberty is a self-evident truth which is the fundamental right of all people. But they reject the need for any philosophy whatsoever, and therefore Libertarianism becomes just as subjective as the average philosophy or political movement. Instead of God being the self-evident truth to which all must sacrifice themselves, or society, etc; for the Libertarians, Liberty is the self-evident truth towards which all must sacrifice themselves to achieve. Not to mention, that the Libertarian party holds that The United States of America is the worst enemy to their "philosophy" in the entire world. Yes, Libertarians believe in many of the political principles that Objectivists do; however, Libertarians hold these political principles as self-evident truths with no philosophical justification whatsoever. Therefore, the only way to achieve the ends that Libertarians believe in is through the use of force. You can't get much un-Objectivist than that! You claimed that the primary principle of Libertarianism is that of non-aggression. Without any philosophical justification, the only way to get others to accept that principle is through the use of aggression, force! That is why Objectivism rejects Libertarianism at its root, because the only way to achieve the ends that Libertarians hope to achieve is through the use of force. Finally, there is a great distinction between attempting to convince a person through reason and giving them moral sanction for their evil ideas. For example, if a person has reached the conclusion that Marxism is good through, what they claim, the use of thinking and reason, there is NOTHING WRONG with presenting arguments in the attempt to demonstrate to this person that his reasoning was flawed. In that case, you are appealing to the reasoning capacity of the person involved and there is nothing wrong with that. Yes, the person involved is still morally responsible for reaching the wrong conclusions with his own independent mind, but those conclusions that he drew in the past can be redeemed by recognizing the proper rational arguments. As long as you are appealing to the rationality of another person, there is nothing wrong with presenting arguments to them. HOWEVER, if you are dealing with a person who explicity denounces rationality and claims that they receive their correctness from divine inspiration or the consensus of society, AND you continue to try to argue with this person, you are giving moral sanction to their ideas. Do you understand the difference? In the second case, by continuing to argue with that person, you are saying, at least in some way, this his rejection of rationality is in some part correct. You are giving moral sanction to the idea that rationality is not the primary way of obtaining knowledge. THAT is a profound rejection of the fundamentals of Objectivism, and it is THAT which David Kelley and his "followers" commit. As long as you deal with others in terms of reason and rational arguments, there is nothing wrong with giving rational arguments. And it is the rationality of others that people like Peikoff, and others, appeal to when they are writing essays and columns, etc. But as soon as you resign yourself to deal with other people on terms outside the realm of reason, you are committing a moral crime, and you are certaintly NOT an Objectivist. Keep checking your premises.

I don't remember exactly why she changed it and how she derived the name Ayn Rand. However, I do know for a fact that it is mentioned in her video biography, Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life.

I don't care about what you name is, but I do care about what ideas you stated in that post, and I must say that they are wrong. Have you read Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty by Peter Schwartz? If you haven't, I highly suggest that you do because it would give you an indication of exactly why Objectivists denounce Libertarianism. More importantly, have you read Leonard Peikoff's essay, Fact and Value, which can be found on the ARI website? That essay is a good indication of exactly why there is an "ARI/TOS" split. What TOS advocates is very much subjectivist, and completely different than the fundamentals of "ARI" Objectivism. It's a moral crime for David Kelley and all of them to even refer to themselves as Objectivists. If you were looking for food in order to survive, would you eat half food and half poision in order to avoid infighting between food and poision? IF the "ARI camp" and the "TOS camp" were fundamentally the same, then there would be more merit to your claim. However, those two "camps" are fundamentally different, which Peikoff's essay, Fact and Value, demonstrates. "ARI" Objectivism, as far as I know, is good, and "TOS" Objectivism, as far as I know, is evil. Would you advocate the combination of good and evil in order to stave off some "infighting?" Obviously that's absurd. Read over those two essays if you haven't already. If you still believe in your claim, check your premises. -Steve

Guest Observer, You made a lot of good points. I think in your last post you tried to answer those questions that were still there after my last post. To fully answer those questions about how men iniate the transition to laissez-faire, I suggest that you read or re-read What Can One Do? in Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand. Also, every major intellectual trend in the course of history has been created by a minority of individuals. There is no need to "convert" a large portion of the population of America to Objectivism in order for a system of laissez-faire to work. I briefly outlined some political steps that would be taken to bring laissez-faire into being. However what's more important are the philosophical steps to doing so. These philosophical steps are what must be done to iniate the transition to laissez-faire capitalism. The first step is to obliterate the notion that altruism is an ideal that must be our basis for morality. As long as this is the moral base of our country, laissez-faire can not come even close to existing. So what can one do in trying to bring about laissez-faire capitalism? One must first be able to bring order to themselves, meaning, they must have a comprehensive philosophy of reason to back up their subsequent advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism. This means a constant process of thought and philosophical growth. In conjunction with this, SPEAK, on any forum that is appropriate. This does not mean that you should lanuch philosophical discussions with everyone you meet. But this does mean that instead of sitting idly by as your values are denounced, simply say I disagree, and be ready to defend your position. Introduce Objectivism to your friends, family, and colleagues that are interested. Rand even suggests writing articles for local newspapers and to your political representatives. If you are living your life completely by 4 main principles: metaphysics - objective reality, epistemology - reason, ethics - self-interest, politics - laissez-faire capitalism; you will be ready to fight for that which you believe in. I also suggest that you read or re-read the introduction to For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand. We can not take the attitude that we must SOMEHOW immediately bring Objectivism to as many people as possible and achieve laissez-faire capitalism as soon as possible. As Rand says, a doctor in the face of an epidemic would not try to cure millions of people on his own. He would know that the best he can do is try to cure as many people as he can, and and attempt to spread these methods for curing to others. Will you feel somewhat frustrated by current events? Absolutely. Will you feel angry about the fact that your life is not completely your own and can be sacrificed by the state in any way in wishes at any time? Absolutely. Yes, there is a certain degree of confidence one can have in their ideas which would negate this anger, but nonetheless, it would seem to me that the more dedicated you are to the principle that man is an end in himself, the angrier you would be when that principle is violated not only towards yourself but to many people as well. The same can be said about all of the other values and principles you hold, obviously varying in degree based on your hierarchy of values. Because of the fact that you know these principles to be right, I think it would make you even angrier to seem them violated. However there is a major difference between the person who is "angry" at the world because of a lack of self-esteem and the person who is angry at the world because his rights are being violated. The former projects his lack of self-esteem into a hatred for the supposed cause of this lack, the world; whereas the man of self-esteem is "angry" at a world which violates his rights exactly because of this violation. Once you achieve the state where none of the first person exists in you, you are capable of doing EVERYTHING in your power to advance laissez-faire capitalism.

I don't think it would be advisable to push for the immediate end to our current system in order to switch immediately to laissez-faire. It would have a disastrous effect on our economy. I don't believe that Objectivists advocate for the immediate switch to laissez-faire either. This is why in their op-eds you see them talking about repealing certain aspects of the mixed economy one at a time. I believe that it would be best to deconstruct the mixed economy bit by bit, over a span of at least 5 years. The first step would be to properly balance the budget so that we don't have billions of dollars in defecit. This could be accomplished by the elimination of many government programs such as welfare, social security, medicare, and perhaps even NASA (all of which would function much better as private organizations.) Following from this, there would be many similar steps to remove government programs in the economy and allow for businesses to have more and more control. The key in my opinion is to bring back the gold standard and to obliterate the Federal Reserve Bank System.

Last night I was pondering the Mind-Body Problem and the proposed Objectivist solution to it. To me, it seems as though the Objectivist position is tied to some sort of dualism because they reject materialism. But this doesn't make any sense because Objectivism rejects the supernatural. So I spent 4 hours last night as well as more time today trying to discover a solution which solves the mind-body problem AND is compatible with Objectivism. I have concluded, with the help of the others, that the mind is purely physical. Here is a summary of what I concluded. At birth a new born baby can merely take in concretes via sensory perception. The sense perception is a purely physical action but it does not yet result in anything. As more and more concretes enter the brain through the senses, the brain formulates the beginning of consciousness and reason, which are also both purely physical actions. As more and concretes enter through the senses, the brain conceptualizes these through the consciousness. But, man's mind does not work automatically thereafter. A process must develop which can abstract to an even higher level than the conceptualization. This is where reason comes in. Reason, a purely physical action, is developed by the brain in response to the flood of information coming in through the senses. However, REASON IS NOT AUTOMATIC. You, the brain, must actively engage in the process of reason in order to use it. And the brain processes of reason work exactly the same way in which your muscles work in the body. The more you exercise your reason, the stronger it gets. Now the question is, where does free will come in to all of this? Once consciousness is established automatically by the brain after sense perception, a faculty is required to control the higher functions of the brain. The creation of consciousness is like the creation of identity. Therefore, a faculty of consciousness, which is a purely physical process, is free will. The free will to engage in the exercise of your reason or not. All of these things can be described by a purely PHYSICAL process. In each human being, the exact physical process by which these things happen is different. This is most apparent in the construction of a concept. In person A, physical process A IS the concept of an apple. In person B, physical process B IS the concept of the same apple. This would seem to denote the existence of universal concepts, but it does not. Rather, it affirms that the object apple exists in reality with certain attributes which are perceived through the senses. The senses then conceptualize the information. The brain categorizes certain sensory perceptions into its memory centers which are called upon when similar senory pereceptions are perceived. The brain makes the physical connection that the group A of sensory perceptions is very similar to group B of sensory perceptions and therefore that the sensory pereceptions of those groups indicate one object. All of these processes are physical. This is how different physical processes equal the same thing, because ultimately in both cases, the apple is an apple, A is A, and reality is reality. This also means that all knowledge possible to man is derived from the senses. This includes the objects of logic and mathematics because without sense perceptions, reason could not develop in the human brain. The understanding of logic and mathematics is created by physical processes in the human brain. This does not mean that mathematics and logic are CREATED in the human brain, this means that the human brain creates the capacity to understand them via the senses but ultimately through the faculty of reason, which is a purely physical process. All of the concepts in our mind ARE physical. Here's an example of what I mean in the mind of a newborn infant. Let's say that there is one object of our perception, object 1, and each time we perceive it, we receive the sense perception a+b+c. a+b+c enters our brain through the sense perception but is lost because we don't yet have a consciousness. we perceive a+b+c again, and there is same process as before. We keep pereceiving a+b+c again and again and again until our brain recognizes a pattern. This is the beginning of consciousness. The next time a+b+c is pereceived, our brain conceptualizes these sense pereceptions into object 1. The sense pereceptions of a+b+c are purely physical, and the brain takes this physical element and condenses it into a new physical element which is then stored in the memory of the brain. This is how concepts are purely physical. The same process is repeated for all other knowledge, except that when it gets to the third step, reason,it is dependent on our free will, but it is still physical nonetheless. Thus, everything is physical. This theory seems to be compatible with Objectivism. What do you think?