[Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?]

Yes, I have read this quote before making my posts to explore Objectivist views on this. The problem with this quote is that it doesn't explain directly how certain considerations should be taken. It does seem to imply it, though.

It does say that "targeting the general population of an enemy state is moral if doing so is necessary to put a swift end to the aggression."

So, this seems to imply that the only consideration to keep in mind is if it is necessary to target the general population. Does this mean a defender is morally required to use a higher priced (in terms of money) solution even if much cheaper solution is present (but one that will cost enemy country more lives)?

This would have to be coming from the principle that human lives are of value and that one is morally required not to end them without a just cause, such as forced self-defense with no other better solution.

I can see where myself agreeing on spending slightly more money on a solution that kills less people in an enemy state.

-------------------------

Here is a question to everybody in general: if two solution differ by only 100$ (American dollars) would you pick a solution that that is the least expensive or the one that saves more lives in enemy state (but cost you 100$ more bucks)?

(100$ is to be taken on a government scale where 100$ is almost nothing.)

What if the difference is 1million? 1billion (which a country can pay but only as a big cut to its economy)? Would your answer change?

EDIT: minor clarifications

[Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?]

If a person does not do anything to help a tyrant and in fact ideologically opposes the tyrant then on what grounds is this person not-innocent? If guilty - of what exactly?

They are innocents, of course. My points weren't about proving that there are no innocents in a war, but that that a proper defense in a time of war is not limited by first checking that no "extra" innocents are hurt in the process of self-defense.

There are children, not-working mothers, students, ect. In what way are they a military threat?

They aren't a direct military threat, of course. But they can be used to support military via production, like working in a factory to produce weapons and supplies.

The argument here is that they can serve as a resource even if they aren't right now. They are essentially prisoners of the tyranny. And any day they can be put to whatever work they can do for the tyrant.

It depends on your specific military objective, which can be small or on a much bigger scale. Let's think big. You want to bring your enemy to surrender - do you have to wipe an entire population out? or is considerable damage (but not total population wipe) enough to achieve the same goal?

In many cases, the latter would be enough. This is a matter of context, of course. Whichever is necessary for the defense must be done. Although, it would have to be quite something unusual to required entire annihilation.

Do you mean that one can not objectively judge the level of threat one is facing?

No, I don't mean objectively. I meant that your requirement is very hard to judge in many cases. "No more than necessary" means that a defender has to find all the possible options to counter the attack, and find the one that deals the least amount of damage. Is this correct? (It follows from my understanding of your position.)

Because if there was a way to resolve the problem with less collateral damage, and yet the defender didn't find it, does this constitute a moral error? It seems like it would, since he did more than necessary.

I suppose that you will probably add that this "necessary" requirement isn't based strictly on the actual requirements in reality as judged by the best mind given enough time to make the best judgment, but instead it is based on the individual best decision in whatever time he had to come up with a decision without giving the attacker time to strike again. (Correct?)

If so, then let's imagine a defender coming up with 2-3 ways to completely take the tyrant down. Then according to your requirements, he must choose the one that deals less damage to their country, right?

These solutions can't be the same, of course. One difference between them is how much damage each does. Now I know from your previous posts that if solution A costs considerably higher in terms your own countrymen than solution B, then solution B should be chosen even if B causes more collateral damage.

What if a difference is very small in terms of countrymen? Let's say something around a single human loss, while the difference between A and B in terms of "innocent damage" is very big. Would you still say solution B should be chosen? I.e. what should be a higher value for the defender: a single countrymen or many innocent lives of an attacking country?

What about other considerations? What if solution A is very expensive in terms of money or some similar resources, while B isn't (and B "costs" more innocent lives). Should solution B be chosen? Or is that an immoral choice here?

Basically, how much trouble would it have to be for the defender to go for the solution that does less collateral damage? From your previous posts, you've indicated the "if you can avoid" requirement as well as some indication that not all considerations can be ignored while "avoiding". So, I'm asking for more details. What is the maximum price a defender should pay before you can say that he can't anymore avoid a harsher action?

Lives of a defending country are an obvious answer, but what about things like material cost of war and even psychological effects on other future potential tyrants? (This is another sideline - what about preventing future damage by more decisive damage?)

This may not always be the case. The tyrant may loose his will to fight with less than nuclear force. ... Perhaps this is not what you meant but I don't buy the "you either nuke them or you doomed" argument.

No, this isn't what I meant. I don't know exactly what it takes to drop a nuke, and how much risk is involved in, for example, the enemy taking down the plane with a bomb, and yet be able to salvage the bomb and then use it against us.

Launching a "simple" long range tactical nuclear missile sounds like a much easier solution ("better" would depend on a context) if it targets some ideological center or a leader of the enemy. It is also more mobile and more precise, and puts less men at risk during the operation (while nuke would take the main plane, support fleet, and suppression fire at the enemy ground guns).

EDIT: spelling and minor clarifications

[Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?]

I would like to bridge the following two views, since the confusion is sure to occur here from both sides.

Ifatart was asking: (Sophia is likely to ask from the same point of view as well.)

What do you mean by "innocent"? What is the standard that you use to determine who is innocent and who is not?

And, not in short, can you prove your argument that there are no innocent civilians (and explain the context of your statement)?

which was answered with:

The population of the enemy tyranny are assets to the tyrants. They are as innocent as airplanes, cannon, warships and airfields. If they don't get out they have targets painted on them.

Note, that Ifatart questions aren't directly answered, and I think I know why Robert may see his answer as obvious enough, so that he didn't address those questions directly after showing his reply.

My own interpretation here of Robert's post is that "innocent" means "not involved in any direct or direct way with the tyrants." An example of "direct way" would be a solider of a tyrant's army, while indirect is simply being an asset of a tyrant that tyrant may use at any moment (as a simple worker, as a scientist, as any kind of producer from who taxes are being collected, etc.). Thus, nobody under a tyrant rule is "innocent" since he can be used by a tyrant in some way.

So, "innocent" in indirect case isn't meant in the usual way it is used. Here it is used passively: a person may not even do anything to help a tyrant, but the fact that he can be used as an asset makes him a threat, and thus a valid target.

So, in this view, an attack is not about figuring out who meant to hurt or not, but it is about figuring out who is a threat. If person A is a threat, then it's valid to target him. And it's not a problem to deal collateral damage either.

If he is innocent (did not nothing by his own choice to be a threat), but yet he is a threat (as being part of a enemy country), then he is a valid target in the time of war, since removing that person removes the threat he poses.

P.S. Now, going around and killing individuals within enemy country just based on this logic is still morally bad, but it is bad, only because it does follow the point of waging a war, which is to remove the threat as quickly as possible. Wasting time to "hunt" would be a wrong way to win the war (assuming this "hunting" does nothing to win the war).

I think the reason here that "innocents" (in usual sense) aren't a problem is that they are a valid source for tyrants to use against the defending country, so a defending country has a right to destroy this threat. A tyrant would be responsible for death of "innocents," so there isn't a moral problem here for the defender.

The point that has been made in this thread is that a defender is morally responsible to prevent killing too many "innocents." So far, however, I don't see how "too many" would be measured. The only proposed judgment is "if you can avoid killing an innocent without a threat to you, then you are morally responsible to do so."

However, this wasn't addressed well enough. How is one supposed to figure out if an action leaves one with no or lesser threat?

In some cases, it is simple, when a tyrant is brought down and the enemy has been defeated, doing more collateral damage would be immoral, because the threat is already removed, and thus "innocents" are no longer a threat to the defending country.

In most other cases, when it isn't even clear yet if an action will lead to victory right away, how is one supposed to judge the amount of threat? Obviously, since the threat of a tyrant is still there, you are still under a threat, and "innocents" are still a resource for a tyrant to use against us.

Thus, if you perform a lesser attack (the power of which you have reduced due to consideration for "innocents") you have dealt less damage to the tyrant, which means the tyrant can do more damage to you than in a case of larger attack. Thus, this leads to a greater danger to the defending country. (By "larger" attack I mean an attack that causes more damage to the tyrant's ability to attack the defending country.) Thus, struggling to avoid doing "extra" collateral damage just means that one gives the tyrant more chances to survive and reply back with more damage.

So, yes, those innocent have individual rights, of course, but the fact that they are now being used as a resource for a tyrant to attack another country, gives the defending country a moral right to retaliate with whatever force is needed to bring the tyrant down regardless of the collateral damage.

[Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?]

to Sophia:

I must add here that I was confused by the list of 3 criteria for amoral cases in your post, Sophia. I initially took them to mean A and B and C. It took me looking through a few of your following replies before I became sure that you meant them as "or" rather than "and" as I originally assumed.

I didn't go as far as assume your were correct in logic, as this is something rather hard to do with regards to a person whom I barely know. In a case of a person I did know well, I would likely have enough to data to "correct" my interpretation, but without that knowledge, I agree with blackdiamond here - your sentence structure got me confused.

[Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?]

I assume that by "nation" you are referring to the sum of all people living in a certain country. (If not, please correct me).

If so, what is your argument that the attacker is the sum of all the people in that country?

Here is an argument:

A country's rights come from delegation of individual rights. So, for example, government is given monopoly on the use of force by delegation of right to self-defense of its citizens. However, along with such rights, responsibility is delegated as well. In a case of a single individual, he is responsible for his actions. Since some rights are being delegated to the country, then the country as a whole is now responsible for its actions. Thus, a country as a whole is the attacker.

[You can be a part of an Objectivist community]

I have an update on this matter.

I did end up joining this in-game corporation; and I am now CEO (leader) of it.

It is an interesting environment that allows to creation and testing of various (political) ideas.

I am now working my way with building a community that is built on individual rights, since most groups in the game are a mix of modern bad ideas. It's fun.

[Was it Just to let Rearden think that Dagny was killed?]

Can you imagine Hank getting a message with no return address from Dagny just saying that she is still exists?

Yes, I can. For example, Dagny got a message from Rearden (after he met Galt) which came from Atlantis, most likely.

Aside from the authorities figuring out that Galt is somehow behind this which is a stretch, there is the utterly outlandish possibility that Rearden may have the impression that Dagny did die and that he is getting the message from the afterlife.

Huh? What would make him think so?

I just said that for the sake of amusement. Only kidding!

What is the amusement here? About what? And for what purpose?

But I do think it is heartless not to inform Hank. If I were Dagny my reaction to the refusal would be to demand to be released immediately. How can Galt justify what is tantamount to kidnapping?

See my previous post.

After all Dagny is supposed to be in love with Hank not John Galt at that point.

Wrong. If you read those parts again, you will see that Dagny herself thinks otherwise - and she knows then already that Rearden is history for her.

Of course one is not responsible - this was never the question.

It is an important building block, so I had to bring it up as a fundamental in this thread, so that other points be explicitly built from it.

The question is Galt and Dagny's hierarchy of values, and what their choice reflects about it.

That would be correct. The difference of opinion here is due to difference in reading the context of the situation in the book. Let's take a look.

If I value someone, and I know they are about to risk their life for nothing - the rational choice, assuming I have nothing to lose by doing it - would be to try to save that value - to save my friend.

This is true, acting on one's hierarchy of values is morally required and is morally good.

This is actually a different question then the ones I asked in the beginning of this thread. I asked if it was OK not to send a letter to Rearden, whereas you ask if it is OK to let Rearden fly over the mountain and risk his life (however, I would question the amount of risk that is implied in your comment) to search for Dagny.

What would have Galt lose in case of letting know Rearden that Dagny is alive? He would break one of the most important principles that the valley is built on. I have described that in my previous post - and I would like to see your comments on the part where I describe this (it's the same post you quoted me from) before I go on.

Is it not possible that Galt intended this as a test for Dagny and Francisco to see what they would do?

This has no relevance to the question of the morality of his actions. And since, this is the thread on the morality of this actions, this quote serves no purpose in this thread as well.

Remember that Galt reminded Dagny, especially, that she and Hank were his enemies. Not enemies-in-spirit, but enemies-in-fact, because they were the only ones that had the ability to destroy him. Regardless of whether or not he liked them, when you are fighting a war it does not serve your purpose to provide help and consolation to the enemy.

Now, this part is true. (And relates the question of Ifat.) I do not know who is this response directed to, but it ought not be directed at me, since I wrote just the same in the post before yours.

[Was it Just to let Rearden think that Dagny was killed?]

... he doesn't want to risk being found out by the looters.

No, see the following quote from my post:

[Dagny:] "Not even a message, if no secret of yours were given away?"

[Galt:] "Not from here. Not during this month. Not to outsiders at any time."

As you can see, your theory doesn't hold true by judging Galt's response. His decision was made on a different principle.

----

From talking to a friend, I have figured out the following.

The rule that Galt follows was placed in the valley for a reason. This reason is the separation of the valley from the rest of the looters' world, which includes not working or worrying to save anybody from the consequence of remaining looters' "slave" (i.e. of remaining "outside").

Now, with this principle and rule in place, let's look at Dagny and Rearden.

Rearden will suffer from thinking that Dagny is dead. Is Galt responsible for his inaction in this respect? This means: Is Galt responsible for making sure that any of Galt's inactions do not cause Rearden pain? Clearly not - one is not responsible for making sure that one did not allow a negative effect to continue to another individual.

Now, to the matter of the hostage. Dagny did break into the valley - thus endangering the entire population. Note, however Galt also disallows Dagny to gain any information about the valley or from from valley that she could use outside to help the looters in either discovering the valley or in using the knowledge to improve looters' life (by new scientific knowledge, for example).

Now, the big question: does a Galt have a right to keep Dagny as a "hostage" in the valley after she breaks into it? Given that the valley's population would be under a threat if it was discovered, Galt does indeed have this right - the right to protect the valley from the rest of the insane world. In this case, Rearden who is actually working to help looters by remaining outside and keep producing for looters is help the looters and working against the valley, and is providing the means for looters to attack the valley (in the case when looters discover Atlantis).

Thus, Galt was just in his action and inaction with regards to Rearden and Dagny.

( and I found my answer to my question as well )

[Was it Just to let Rearden think that Dagny was killed?]

A short background from Atlas Shrugged:

Dagny crashes into Atlantis. Rearden learns of the crash and thinks she is dead.

At this time Dagny and Galt are in Atlantis. Francisco joins them, and learns that Dagny is not dead.

Francisco indirectly asks Galt if they could let Rearden know that Dagny is alive.

Galt explains to Francisco that the answer is no.

Question:

Was this good to do? Was is it just to do? Would it be unjust to do otherwise?

My Thoughts:

My "feeling" is that it is just and right, though it results in Rearden's pain. Of course, feeling of justice is not enough. I am building a complete logical chain, but I have not completed it yet.

Does anyone have thoughts or links that would help me? Thanks.

-------

Here are the relevant snippets from Atlas Shrugged:

Pages 763-764: (Dagny talks to Galt.)

Then she heard her own voice asking suddenly, involuntarily, and she knew that this was the treason she had wanted to escape, "Do you permit any communication with outside world?"

"No."

"Not any? Not even a note without return address?"

"No."

"Not even a message, if no secret of yours were given away?"

"Not from here. Not during this month. Not to outsiders at any time."

She noticed that she was avoiding his eyes, and she forced herself to lift her head and face him. His glance had changed; it was watchful, unmoving, implacably perceptive. He asked, looking at her as if he knew the reason of her query, "Do you wish to ask for a special exception?"

"No," she answered, holding his glance.

Page 769:

After a long moment, he [Francisco] turned to Galt. "John," his voice sounded peculiarly solemn, "could we notify those outside that Dagny is alive . . . in case there's somebody who . . . who'd feel as I did?"

Galt was looking straight at him. "Do you wish to give any outsider any relief from the consequences of remaining outside?"

Francisco dropped his eyes, but answered firmly, "No."

"Pity, Francisco?"

"Yes. Forget it. You're right."

-------

Here is my logic so far.

The world outside is out to drain people of ability to death. Galt starts his quest, and builds with fellow "warriors" a safe place where they can live. One of the rules is "No communication with outside world." Dagny breaks into their world. Galt decides to hold her there for a month. Dagny is still one of outsiders, and so is Rearden.

Now, a key point is that Rearden's grief is the consequence of his choice - to remain outside and to "feed" the looters. This is where I have a problem.

How come it is not morally good to let Rearden know of Dagny's well-being so that he doesn't suffer and doesn't risk his life flying a plane in the mountains? It is Galt's choice to hold her hostage after all.

My thoughts are that Rearden by remaining outside is working against Galt and for looters. Thus, his actions are wrong.

(By the way, is it also "morally bad" ? Note: This is not the same as saying Rearden is morally wrong; according to his own knowledge and effort he is doing his best to figure it out, but this does not change the effects of his actions.)

Whatever he suffers from it is his own fault. Now, this is simple with material things and "looters." But what about those who are aware of Dagny's and Rearden's situation?

It seems (I'm not sure yet) that the main reason is the rule set in the Gulch. By breaking into it, Dagny had become the "scab," and Galt is morally good in following the rule and letting Rearden suffer his consequences. Furthermore, it seems that it would be unjust to let Rearden know of Dagny until she either goes back to the world or Rearden shrugs.

[300]

Exactly. The irony and probably the concrete example of this was when the Spartans made fun of the "citizen soldiers" that came to aid them from Athens.

I disagree.

Spartans did not make fun of them. Those "citizen soldiers" were the first to ask why Sparta brought so few (now the tone there did sound insulting). Spartans response was right: they were soldiers and thus could do more, thus they were worth more in battle. Where is the "making fun of" part?

[Spindle neurons and rationality]

*Because infants lack spindle neurons for the first four months, they are incapable of rational thought. Their mind is physiologically and functionally more primitive than an adult ape. Do they have rights?

If a person is in a coma, they are incapable of rational thought. Does the person have rights? Yes, of course. The current moment is not the only time frame to consider; this would mean ignoring some knowledge. Thus, the decision wouldn't be right.

*If we successfully implanted a sufficient number of spindle neurons into an ape, would it have rights (given the above assumption)? This assumes that the ape would be capable of concept-formation, regardless of whether it did so.

The nature of the species is what determines its rights. If, just as humans, it needs to function in a way that requires rights and ability to understand them, then it would have rights.

["Common psychology"]

So hypothetically, suppose you have this person who expresses his/her intentions and views publicly: would you say that checking his/her reaction to an insult (or a couple of insults) can be a good way to determine if they are "not stable emotionally and are "needy""?

That sounds logical, though certain responses would give more or less information.

I don't see how this would be a behavior of a rational person, or a person with self-esteem...

Yeah, this case needs to be pulled very hard by its ears to make it even to temporarily confused rational person. Like you said, if that person sees others as so dumb to be manipulated, then why bother with them at all? (This reminds me of Gail Wynand in TF.)

I don't understand it: What is the meaning of: "private admission does not matter a whole lot"? Does it mean that the person who received the insult will not care to respond with an insult to person A in private conversation, but will only care to respond to it in public (as if to say "look everyone: I am the man and he is the chicken")?

Yeah, the response will depend on who is around and how many are around.

Also, what does it mean to be shown in a negative light in person?

I didn't phrase that part right. 'in person' isn't needed, since I said 'in public'. So simply: "The reason I've seen to perform defensive action is the general fear of being shown in a negative light in public."

So you wouldn't say that an "honest error" can last for a month or so, sort of like a mission someone would take on themselves to insult another person. Right?

Yes, or possibly longer if the error requires more work, such as some errors of main characters in TF (Dominique) and AS (Rearden).

[Objectivists Difficult to Find]

Have you read We the Living? This part of the conversation reminds me of Kira's suspension bridge--with no banks to build it on. But I guess there are some careers one could pursue satisfactorily on a desert island. Fishing, or coconut farming..

You are applying my answer to a different context. The context above was the one about people liking your work (and etc.) once it is done, so we are working in a context where it is possible to do one's work.

[Why the hatred towards alternative economic systems?]

You come off as incredibly arrogant and faux-intellectual individual. Why can I not be an objectivist? I believe in objective values and morals. Why do I suddenly have to stop claiming I do because some nutjob says otherwise?

Capitalism is part of Objectivism as defined and created by Ayn Rand, if you don't agree with Ayn Rand, then you are not Objectivist by definition. You said you disagree with Capitalism, thus, you don't agree with it as Objectivism does, thus you are not Objectivist.

I had no intentions of being arrogant or anything else you mentioned above there. Do not assign me intentions.

Hold on - YOU are the one saying that objectivism can only be achieved with capitalism. That is a vastly bold claim - you are the one who has to defend that too.

It is defended in Objectivist literature.

You seem to be of the illusion that any money that someone recieves is somehow "earned".

I stated no such claim nor implied it in any of part of my post.

If you are concerned with doing the best for everyone, you have to cast aside convential notions to do so. Putting one concept above all others just for the sake of it is ridiculous.

I do not hold sacrificial ideas. I am concerned with what is best for me. I do not live for anybody else nor against anyone.

No it isn't. You're just plain delusional. Just about all the really great things in Sweden right now can be traced back to be it's current "socialist" state. You should know this. You remind me of those neo-con nutjob who believe Europe is a "shithole".

This is a clear personal attack. I'm reporting you.

The End.

[Why the hatred towards alternative economic systems?]

I do not like the attitude of this post. You are acting like an attacker. Have you read the forum's rules before posting?

I will point out following:

I would consider myself an objectivist in that I believe very strongly in objective values and morals.

This is an error. Your views are not Objectivist . 'O' must be capitalized. It is the name of the philosophy. If you disagree on capitalism, then you are not O'ist, b/c it is part of the philosophy.

Surely Capitalists are "evading" by refusing to circulate money in a manner that benefits people in a more efficent manner?

Here comes the sacrificial song. Who is to circulate money? Whose money? Earned by whose work? What is required to be able to earn that money? You are the one evading the answers to those questions.

The whole point of Objectivism should be to introduce logical thinking in a real useful manner.

More nonsense. 'Useful' manner? By the context of your post, 'useful' apparently means to serve the good of others. This is plain wrong. Check your sacrificial premises.

If the only system that can work to a satisfactory level is Laissez Faires Capitalism, why is one of the best countries in the world in terms of standard of living and general life satisfaction Sweden, which is a socialist hybrid?

This is plain wrong. Sweden rides on a wave of prosperity it had a few decades ago, which was built by capitalism. It is falling apart now under socialistic rule.

I am certainly not a "Randist". I don't see how the great moral good is refusing to accept that certain restrictions have to be put on some people's restrictions to ensure others are on a more equal standing.

If you want to accept something for somebody else, go ahead, sacrifice yourself, but you have no right to force others to accept it as well.

[Objectivists Difficult to Find]

I guess I misunderstood the context. This is not a general statement, but more like "in order to be happy this (creative work) is what it takes for me". And not "Nothing can even remotely come close to make me as happy as this thing (creative work) can".

In this case, I agree with you.

This is closer to what I meant. I would only correct that I would the phrase the second quote of yours as: "Nothing can even remotely come to disturb what makes me as happy as this thing (creative work) can."

Try thinking about how creating your stuff would feel like if you knew there would be no use for it, no one to appreciate it, to buy it, to admire it. I mean... it would be a real bummer, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldn't be.

For me it would take away a major chunk from the enjoyment I get from my work, though, I never think of other people's reactions to my work as I create it. No one exists for me when I create something, But it must be in the background somewhere.

That is weird. I don't need any such background.

Well why not? If there is a value so great, don't you think it is only logical to wait for it, in the sense that you want it to happen, and it matters to you when it happens?

It is logical to wait for something. However, the meaning of "waiting" can be different in a different context, for example "waiting" in a line for something and "waiting" to find somebody have different meanings in the way both activities are to be performed and what is required of those activities. I think this difference is in play with Roark's answer. I don't have the concrete answer, though.

Because if one spends one's life waiting for some future happiness, then one's life go to waste. Life should be happy all the time, as a basic state of mind and emotion.

I don't think this is what Roark meant. He said before that answer that he enjoys building cottages, and that he would be happy to do it for the rest of his life. So, this removes the possibility of that meaning.

[Objectivists Difficult to Find]

I find your combination of being able to admire people and be excited by their virtues (like Burt Rutan) and the view of relationships as "dents" to be bazar.

You have misunderstood my post. I was saying that a lack of a rational relationship can only be a negative, a"dent," not the relationship itself.

[Objectivists Difficult to Find]

I see the same problem of lack of intelligent people, and even more so of Objectivists.

However, I do not see the cause for the depression. I can see that there are plenty of intelligent people out there from news, Internet, etc. I can find a few people around who can think and work towards their goals. And of course, Internet bridges the distance gap, so, it is possible to find places such as this forum.

[POV follows:]

Either way, however, I don't see how any of this is a problem. It would be better if the entire world was rational and Objectivist, but it is not essential for my happiness. Even if the entire world was doomed and running toward the end, I can still enjoy my life through my work for whatever time there would be available. The historical trend, however, is overall positive, so I don't have a doomed view of the world. Hell, watching some of the achievements accomplished by individuals ("heroes") throughout history is enough to see that one can achieve in the world. (I saw Burt Rutan in person on a conference this year. ) That is the essential piece of the puzzle for me. If I can achieve, I'm happy to live. Relationships are secondary (if not further back).

For me, the question of relationships can only cause a minor dent on a generally positive graph. I recall how Ayn Rand (and/or Leonard Peikoff) described that a rational person with a goal in life has a positive emotional background (related to the sense of life), so a lack of something other than the main goal can only cause a minor dent on this positive background, but it should not fall into negative.

I find that my state of mind follows their descriptions and implications.

-----

[some specific answers:]

Do you just wait it out, knowing that there are people out there like you, that it is only a matter of time before you find those people, or they find you?

I know that there are people out there like me, but I can't say that I am waiting.

I think this is a point where I need to do some introspection work and analysis. However, I can recall one point from the The Fountainhead where Roark is working on a cottage house after he lost his Temple case. Dominique was on her way to marry Gail, but stopped at the small town where Roark was working. Dominique told Roark that after previous buildings, the cottage house was like quarry all over again. Roark said that he didn't think so and that he thought he would build larger designs in the future, yet he enjoyed this current work just the same. Then Dominique asked Roark: "What are you waiting for?" He replied: "I'm not waiting."

The precise (or explicit) understanding of the meaning of the above passage still alludes me, and I can't put it down into words right now, but this is how I would answer: "I'm not waiting."

And if so, what do you do in the mean time?

I do the work I enjoy, build my life one step at a step.

Compromise the meaning of friendship by befriending people who don't value friendship in the same way you do?

I have not been able to even start a relationship/dating with someone who doesn't hold the same basic values and virtues as me. The repellent force is far too great, almost on a physical level.

["Common psychology"]

Case 1. Kevin in post #2 mentioned a case of a person with no self-esteem. Here is another case with someone who has self-esteem, but has come to an incorrect conclusion about people's expressions. Imagine the following logic.

People who are not stable emotionally and are "needy" would display their intentions and views often and publicly. Thus, (incorrectly) those who don't show them publicly (even to the person they like) are the opposites. Now, showing dis-interest or the appearance of disinterest is a good sign for that person in the eyes of those who hold this faulty logic. And the opposite will be the negative sign.

Essentially, the logic is "since person A does not exhibit behavior X, then the person has behavior Y." And this would be a reason for the confusion.

Now, there are things that could add on top of this layer. For example, if the person does not want to admit the mistakes in their induction, or has not yet seen the evidence to the contrary, or has yet to work through the logic to the correct end, etc.

Case 2. I can take my case above and extend to cover this one. In this case, the person could have decent self-esteem, but have a bad approach to human relationships, such as sticking to a weird "ritual" of handling people, or even hold a view that people can be "controlled" by a certain behavior (such as ignoring them will lead them to respect you, etc.).

----

Case 3. Most common reason I've noticed by watching people is to respond back with an insult in order to make the original insult insignificant. It is a defensive action made by a quick learned reaction. (The technique is usually to attack the person not the argument.) Later on, once the insult sinks in, the person may decide that the insult was "damaging" to their ego, and reply back with a second insult of their own, this time it would be an offensive action.

The reason I've seen to perform defensive action is the general fear of being shown in a negative light in person or in public. (In this case, private admission does not matter a whole lot usually.)

The offensive action is often based on the idea that a worded insult is an actual damage, and must be handled. Just take a notice of the implementation of this idea in pretty much all TV programs, shows, movies, etc., where almost everyone responds to an insult in order to prove (to whom?) that the insult has nothing to do with reality.

----

In the end, it is possible for a first-hander to be in one of these positions, but only by an honest error and only temporarily.

[Milton Friedman 1912-2006]

Where did he talk about a natural pre-disposition towards Socialism/Communism? In what context?

At the end of the following video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=68...edman&hl=en

he explains why has statism been a prevalent form of gov't in the past. I think the location is around 20-25minutes in the movie. He states that it is "natural" for men to tend towards "simple" solutions, such as following dogmas. In the video, the term "natural" is not discussed.

[Milton Friedman 1912-2006]

I saw only one of his movies (on Google Video), while I liked his most of economical ideas presented in that video, I totally dissagreed with his views of human "natural" tendency to move towards Communism/Socialism. Finding more similar bad views about him, shows that his lack of stable and correct philosophical grounds did hurt him on many occasions (such as his original anti-trust law position).

[Meaning of Nakedness]

Reminds me of the old story from back in the days of all-female dorms. One woman had just gotten out of the shower and was walking back to her room with nothing but a small towel when the word came that there was a man on the floor. Her towel was just big enough to wrap around her chest or her waist but not both. So, she wrapped the towel around her most identifiable feature, her head, and proceeded to her room.

Gosh, this was really funny. :lol:

[The Fire Inside]

Great short story. It does nail a rather annoying topic in the common life.

Gods, Zak, I just read this and I almost cried. It's very poignant, and I didn't find the tone overly negative, just sort-of... longing, I suppose.

I think the tone is fine as well.

...If you don't like the tone, then maybe you should meet a girl on the balcony. ...

I was kind of expecting this, but it did not turn out to be so in this story.

[Is Military Draft Coming Back?]

Quote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/...litics_draft_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

And what is more, check these lines out from the same source:

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," he said.

And finally, dropping a hammer:

"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.

Wow. Apparently, defending individual rights is OK, but only if you agree with breaking those same rights that you are defending by forcing people to give their life away.

Democrats are back and they are not kidding around.

[Family Religious Background of Objectivists]

Olex may freely disagree. ... Then the question would be, is there evidence that no such being exists. I would say that all evidence about anything converges at the conclusion that god actually does not exist. So this is not just an arbitrary claim (that god exists), it is an actively false one.

This was my point, indeed. I do agree that most Gods are what you described as.

And my point, just as yours, was that these definitions are wrong, b/c they violate certain facts and principles, thus they are false. Those definitions that do not violate anything (something like "no laws or principles apply to God", etc.) are arbitrary.

@Richard: do you agree that if a definition violates a fact or a principle within existing body of knowledge, then the claim of such being is false?