woschei

Uncle Rich, I am from Germany too and and if you look on my blog www.objektivist.blogspot.com (online since 2003) and our Domeus group and the other blogs from me or Sascha Settegast (who is a student at the Objectivist Academic Center) than you can see that there is more than one Objectivist in Germany. Join us!

Oh, the Germans have changed. They are no more Nazis, they are all hippies now!

A Frankfurt court sentenced Armin Meiwes, a German convicted of killing another man and eating parts of the body, to life in prison today in a retrial of the so-called cannibal case. Meiwes, a computer technician, met victim Bernd Juergen Brandes through the Internet. Brandes, an engineer from Berlin, expressed his desire to die and be eaten by another person via e- mail, Meiwes had told the court in the earlier trial.

The point is: you can give up VALUES, but you can't give up RIGHTS. If someone commits suicide, he gives up a value, but no violation of rights is involved.

Whom do you mean by the term "nonsens"? Me or Mr. Aly? The question is, whether Hitler's politics benefited the poor. Mr. Aly writes that 95 % of the whole German population benefited from Hitler's Hilters politics. I think it is the other way around. Hitler exploited and drained all social groups to pursue his polictical goals.

Götz Aly's "Hitlers Volksstaat" is one of the most-awaited books in Germany this spring. In it, Aly defends the thesis that Germans accepted Hitler's raiding of occupied countries for as long as they did because he had introduced a "leftist" social policy at home, which above all benefited the poor. Im very interested in your opionion of that issue. I don't think that Götz Aly is right. Dictatorship means the rule of unreason and the "normal people" have to pay the price. Further information: http://www.signandsight.com/features/23.html

There is no quote at all, only the sentence that I cited.

Roderick T. Long writes on mises.org: "It's worth remembering that Rand herself opposed U.S. involvement in World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam." I know Miss Rands stand on the war in Vietnam but is Mr. Long really right about Ayn Rands opposition to any American involvement in World War II?

A film that taps the memoirs of Adolf Hitler's secretary for a controversially intimate portrait of the Nazi leader's final days in his Berlin bunker has received a standing ovation at its debut in Germany. At the gala premiere in Munich on Thursday night, the producer, Bernd Eichinger, said his aim was to avoid simply demonising Hitler. The director, Oliver Hirschbiegel, argued that it was time for a film documenting the Nazis from a German perspective. "These were people and not robots, not schizophrenic, but people with an incredibly destructive insanity," Eichinger said. "It is part of human nature that we can be monsters as well as do good." In an interview with the Playboy magazine Ayn Rand said: " Naturalism holds that a writer must be a passive photographer or reporter who must transcribe uncritically whatever he happens to observe around him." So I am right to say that any "naturalistic" movie on Hitler is bad? Or could it be that naturalism could give us a better understanding of history to some degree and that's why it is legitimate?

Ayn Rand argues, "The right to accept [government scholarships] rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force." Of course, as Rand notes, Objectivists must also advocate the repeal of such programms. But the repeal of unjust laws can have harmful effects on individuals. I think of social security or goverment-run health insurances. When I am sick and old it is maybe impossible to get a private health insurance. Is it always proper to demand a swift repeal of an unjust law or are there cases when a repeal -without compensation- means a second vicitimization?

Good point by Kevin. It is important to stress that the government is not attacking innocents but only the criminals. To Capitalism forever: It is not a question of numbers but of principles. Yours words sound utilitaristic.

I am very interested in the Objectivist vision of heroism. Andrew Bernstein of The Ayn Rand Institute said in an interview that "a hero is somebody who is committed in one form or another to either the creation of or the defense of life-promting values." I think Col. Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg fits in that definition. Von Stauffenberg made a dramatic turnaround from being an supporter of Adolf Hitler and his regime to carrying the bomb packed in a briefcase that was intended to kill him. The 60th anniversary of Stauffenberg's failed assassination attempt of July 20, 1944, will be commemorated in Germany on Tuesday. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and President Horst Koehler will attend a ceremony at the Bendlerblock, the former Nazi war ministry in Berlin, where Stauffenberg and three fellow conspirators were executed by firing squad hours after the bomb went off. I reject any attempt to define von Stauffenberg's acting by altruistic terms. Lutheran bishop Wolfgang Huber said at Berlin Cathedral: "Those who sacrificed their lives during those days did not die in vain. Their example lives on." For a short biography of Stauffenberg look here: http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/stauffenberg.html

I agree with you that punishing criminals is not the first priority of law enforcement and that the goverment should never harm or kill innocents for the purpose of bringing criminals to justice. But I think that it is necessary to find a proper degree of certainty regarding the situation of the hijacked plane. We can never be absolutely sure that the plane will be used as a weapon before it is too late. But sometimes it is necessary to act even when we are not quite sure.

It is the purpose of law enforcement to protect innocent people and to punish the guilty ones. But how about innocent people in an airplane that is hijacked by terrorists? The government should do its best to protect those people but as we have seen on 9/11 it is possible that there is only one alternative open to the government: shooting down the airplane. Do you agree?

I am so glad to hear from so many Objectivist individuals all over Europe. I myself come from Germany. But let me inform you that that there are plans to found an Atlas Institute Europe. Purpose is to promote the ideas of Ayn Rand. But I think it will be an libertarian project. I think we should start to connect Objectivst people from all European countries. Why not found EOS? European Objectivist Society.

You don't have to go Germany to join our group. We are not yet a club, only a loose group of people who share similiar ideas. I know some people -fine people- in Holland who are interested in Objectivism but i think they are very much liberterian leaned so I am a little bit skeptic that we can go in the same direction. There are plans to found a European wide Atlas Society Europe too. But let's wait and see ... Best Wishes Wolfgang

Hi xobject, you are not the only one! I am from the northern area of Germany. Please look at my blog A href="http://www.objektivist.blogspot.com"www.objektivist.blogspot.com/A (in German). Maybe you could join our group of German Objectivists. For further information send me a private e-mail. Wolfgang