DonAthos

The problem is that you are pretending that all this happened in a vacuum.
Several references are made in AS to human history. To the fact that The USA was the first real attempt to have a rational and moral society.
What he saw was not a people that had no opportunity to know what he knew.
He was watching them willfully destroy what was good and right. The company he walked out of was not an isolated incident.
It was made clear in the book that that was the direction the world and now the USA had taken, with the voters' tacit consent.
They made clear their allegiance to the code of looting and pillaging with their vote that night.

He did not destroy their world, they did.
He did not *steal* the other producers from the world of the looters- he gave them refuge.
He did not "create a gas chamber and lock them in"- he left the gas chamber they created and saved everyone he was sure wouldn't attempt to drag him back. Then he left them to their own creation.

If you throw yourself off a building I am not murdering you by refusing to use my body to block your fall.

I'm gonna have to agree with you that understanding the role of sex in human relationships does, to some degree, belong in the realm of philosophy. Sex is an essential part of man's life, and it is the role of philosophy to guide man's choices regarding sex. Namely, it is the role of philosophy to encourage men to have sex, and to help form one's hierarchy of values (based on which men make all their choices, including their choice of sexual partners).

It is also the role of philosophy to point out that last fact: that, admit or deny it, it is a fact that one DOES make one's choices based on one's values, and that one's choice of sexual partners reflects on one's values just like all other choices.

But that's it. Philosophy does not make psychological or medical claims for instance (i.e. one kind of sex is unhealthy, another is not). Whatever Rand believed about that, she believed it as a follower of the medical sciences at the time, not as a philosopher.

If you want an impossible to misunderstand, factual description of the Objectivist stance on sex, she was asked that very question: What philosophy specifically has to say on the subject of sex? She answered: "It says that sex is good.". To that, I would only add one other point she made (a point she made very clear in AS, when discussing Jim Taggart's choice of sex partners), that sex does indeed unavoidably reflect on one's values. And of course, what moral principles ought to guide one's values is a part of philosophy that is relevant to the issue.

Personally, I'm undecided on this issue, and my default response is precisely what you've said here. I just wanted to point out to Nicky that he and Eiuol are not (apparently) arguing, except perhaps in misunderstanding one another. Once we've conceded "license and registration" or that a nuke can be used in space, but not on Earth, or etc., then we've conceded some form of gun control.

I think that Eiuol has long attempted to phrase his argument in the strongest possible terms, and that folks have demurred from taking him up on it: but if we want to answer this question, we really should consider the nuclear weapon (which is only the most powerful weapon thus far, but not necessarily the most powerful weapon that will ever be).

If we are comfortable with an a priori restriction against possession of a functioning nuclear weapon -- if we consider its ownership alone to constitute a general "threat" subject to regulation or prohibition (let's say I have some "suitcase bomb" in my garage) -- then I think that we have already agreed with Eiuol's fundamental claims, and what remains to be worked out is the application of our rationale to smaller-scale weaponry, such as various "assault rifles," etc.

This criticism can be applied to any type of principle, not just in morality but any other arena. Even a simple rule that "water boils at 100 degrees C is only true within a context, and about 99.9% of people who are boiling water at home actually do not fit that context.
Principles and rules are always formulated within a context (Newton's laws are an oft-used example). Context is part of a well-formulated the principle. Even when people do not keep repeating what that context is, or even if they have not articulated that context, it is always there. Circle back to the criticism that says "this principle is only valid in a particular context", and you see how it is really an empty criticism.

Possibly it is religion that gives people this incorrect viewpoint: God says "do this", and there is no reasoning behind it. So, that's how they think of the most fundamental principles in the area of human action. However, if one applies rationality to the topic, the full form would always have a "because": i.e., "do this, because..." So, something like "Thou Shalt not Lie" is clearly applicable to all sorts of situations, but there are other situations where it is no longer applicable.

In situations like that, what's really required is to step back and articulate the more abstract and broader principle(s). A software department may have some rule like "no routine should be more than N lines long". This is very concrete. A programmer might come to a situation where it does not make sense to him. If one considers the broader principle it may be something like: "no routine should to so long that a reader loses track of what it is doing as a unit". And, even this is formulated with a context in mind: a context where the routine being written will actually be read by someone who wishes to understand it... which assumes a context about it not being a throw-away routine, and about the cost of development and the cost of repair. [i don't want to get side-tracked with the specific example: just illustrating the point of concrete to abstract, and the role of context.

I know this is an introductory thread. So, if you want to split this topic out please say so... or start a new one.

The standard of value is life, human life.

But whose life specifically? One's own life.

And thus, to be a good person, one must have an understanding of their own nature -- not simply "as a human being," but as an individual entity. As a human being, we may generally say that drinking water is good and drinking poison is bad. But in a specific context, what was once "poison" might actually be life-saving medicine. Thus, it wouldn't do to establish some moral rule that drinking "Poison X is wrong", because "Poison X kills people, and human life is the standard of value" while ignoring the circumstance of the individual to whom Poison X is a benefactor.

(Though it remains valid to say that "poison is bad" where "poison" does not refer to anything specific, but the general class of those objects which are inimical to a specific individual's life and health; with regard to such a statement, Poison X would no longer be "poison" at all when required by a given man as medicine -- not for him -- though the rest of the world continue to classify it as such.)

I would like to move from this understanding -- if we are agreed on it -- to an informed analysis of the various controversies regarding gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation that seem to spring up again and again on these forums (and, if I may infer, within Objectivist communities generally).

Suppose that a claim is made in the following manner: men and women are different, and possess different fundamental natures according to their gender. A woman -- a "good woman" -- will act in certain ways according to her feminine nature (which, we are left to suppose, is derived from... the shape of her vagina, or the physical nature of the sex act, or her brain chemistry, or something). And any woman who acts apart from this supposed ideal is in rebellion against her nature, and thus... wrong or wicked in some vague manner.

But with respect to any gender-specific behavior that we would seek to offer prescriptive advice, or make general moral pronouncements (e.g. transsexuality is immoral; women should not ask a man out, but be asked; nor should she seek to be President; etc.)... doesn't it remain that any individual woman is not ethically beholden to her nature as "woman qua woman," but to her nature as an individual? That she must first understand herself, and then take those actions which are best for her personally, not simply as an instance of a type, but as a highly specific entity in an actual, real-world context? And where she finds that her individual nature is in conflict with that which is proposed to be typical of her, as a woman, that she must pursue that which is best for her as an individual -- the expectations of others for womanhood be damned?

To wit: being possessed of a vagina means that it is irrational to seek the office of the Presidency (the details of this argument to be worked out by someone, presumably, in the future)*. However. An individual woman who does not share whatever psychological traits are assumed to be possessed by all those who also have vaginas may not be irrational in her pursuit of the Presidency, but might in fact be acting according to her nature as an individual. It may be irrational for such a woman not to seek the Presidency, insofar as this pursuit will further her life in the manner it would for a man to whom it would be likewise the best thing to do.

If there is any truth to the contention that certain things are generally true for the member of a gender (i.e. Poison X is bad to drink, and women ought not seek the Presidency), don't we counsel our own destruction when we continue to apply this derivative thinking to individuals to whom these things do not, in reality, apply (my body needs Poison X to survive [and we shall call it "medicine"], and this woman, per her nature as an individual, would be well-served by running for the Presidency)?



* Please note: none of this is meant to signal my agreement with the notion that it is irrational for women to run for President, even "in general." Such a thing requires its own argument -- and I would likely put myself on the opposing side. But I would like to explore the idea that, even were this shown to be somehow "generally true" (just as a certain liquid might be "generally poisonous"), we must allow that in individual circumstances it might not apply -- and thus a context-free admonition that "women ought not seek the Presidency" is as wrongheaded as a general proscription against a liquid which may, in a specific scenario, actually be a life-saving medicine.

In the video, there is no evidence of a crush of a crowd. It looks like she had the time. Nor is there evidence that the request was irrational.
So, really all you've got against her is that she gave away free-food. Turns out that the publicity of a video like this is going to be worth more than 5 donuts. If she'd actually thought like that, it would have been a good decision; but I'm not going to claim that she did so. It seems like she enjoyed the process and that was all the reward she wanted. In that moment, she was obviously not thinking about whether her employer should get payment. In the moment, she probably felt like she owned the donuts. She probably -- correctly -- feels her role gives her some leeway when it comes to 5 donuts.

But, giving the donuts for free is a distraction here. Even if we assume she should have asked for payment, we're barking up the wrong tree.

More essential is this: the customer was obviously willing to pay for a request that seemed it would be a value for him, but it demanded that she go slightly above the routine. She appeared to have the time to fulfill the request. So, her options were: stick to her defined job-role or go beyond. The second option would be fun for her, and would make the customer happy. Any good person would choose the win-win option as she did.

The fact that she did not accept payment is not fundamental here, it is an after thought. If the owner thought money should have been accepted, its easy enough to say "Great job, but next time make the guy pay for it". But, really, a good businessman would probably be thinking: "Wow! next time we have an Olympics, we should do these and sell the set at a bit higher margin", or "The next Olympics are 4 years away, what else can you make for us, Miss Donut Rodin?"

The attitude shown by this employee is exactly the attitude that good businessmen seek: someone who cares about the customer, has a bit of fun in her job, and is willing to go the distance. Getting such a person to start charging the right amount for her work is relatively easy. But, it is virtually impossible to take someone who is bureaucratic and lacking in initiative (but willing to charge what's on the menu) and instill those qualities into them.

We can't stop there. "Interference"? Interference with what? With doing that which, in their opinion, a person needs to do.



"Necessary actions."

Need. Need to do what? To get to Pizza Palace, and etc.



I have some measure of sympathy for a great many things with which I disagree. I don't begrudge you sympathy, but I do insist that this line of reasoning is wrong. Everything that I may do with my property "interferes" with you, insofar as you might have other plans for that same property. If I eat my apple, that "interferes" with your plans to eat that same apple. Perhaps eating an apple is a "necessary action of life man qua man," and maybe without such an apple, you might starve, but that does not mean that my apples are not mine. It does not make my apples yours. Your need -- and my use of my own property such that it "interferes" with you satisfying your need -- is no better a claim on my property than your need alone... and neither is it ultimately a different claim.



I imagine that, from their point of view, many things are possible. And perhaps they believe the same of me and my point of view. This is why I've taken such pains to elaborate my point of view, and to provide examples, and to relate it to theirs, and to tie my point of view into quotes of theirs and Ayn Rand, and to ask questions, and to answer questions posed of me, and etc.

Perhaps I've done it all in error? Perhaps. And I will believe that as soon as it is demonstrated such that it makes sense to me.



Even in the same post where I was agreeing with you initially on "prescriptive easements," I was also responding to softwareNerd and scenarios we had been discussing on easements through a property between villages. He had made a case on the basis of a "prescriptive easement" like what you and I have discussed (or at least much like it), and I agreed with him -- but then I asked him about a situation where there was no such "prescriptive easement"; no preexisting path or history of use. His reply put me into doubt as to whether or not "need" would be sufficient justification for an easement in that case, to which I replied/asked:



To my query he replied:



softwareNerd would not advocate for an easement in the scenario I'd provided him because "no easement is needed." Were an easement "needed"? Presumably, he would advocate for it. He recognizes that this is a different thing from the "prescriptive easements" you and I have discussed, based on a history of usage. And softwareNerd "would not use the term 'need'" to describe the basis of his position. But I would use that term, and I do, because I think it more clearly expresses the heart of his position, and also the position of Grames who endorses "easements by necessity," and so on.

If we need to dig further, we can and will. Let me know.



I do not, neither in this quote nor in the others that you cite, intend to deny the legitimacy of those easements that you and I have previously discussed.



I agree with you. "He is under no duty to trade something he owns...in exchange for something that he already owns," which in this case is a prescriptive easement based on prior use, or a contractual agreement. Just so. But those remarks of mine that you've quoted are meant to be taken with this understanding in mind. When I say "surrounding property holders denying permission to use their property," I mean their property as opposed to that which the surrounded person owns, including such prescriptive easements or contractual arrangements.

It is not my intention to agree with you on one hand -- that there are certain kinds of property rights that a person can have which amount to "an easement" -- and then to turn around and say that no easements are valid, as though you and I hadn't discussed the matter. (Though I guess I've spent enough time on the board to understand why you might think I'd do such a thing...)



Yes, absolutely. It is neither my intention to "prove the case that [someone] can't go anywhere." The only thing of interest to me is an examination of these claims of "right to egress," "easement by necessity," and etc., to see whether any or all (or none) of them are justified.

The two cases that you've put forward: the prescriptive easement based on prior use and the contractual agreement, I find justified. As to other claims (which either exist in this thread, as I've claimed, or perhaps that I've just imagined), I am not yet convinced.



I agree with you that the positions you've put forward with regard to easements are, as you say, "perfectly consistent with liberty." I do not agree that all of the claims in this thread, and especially those to which I have been responding, have been addressed to #1 as opposed to #2.

If it is the case that contractual agreement and prescriptive easement based on a history of use answer all of the situations we might realistically face in a free society, then they do... and there is no subsequent need for an "easement by necessity."

But when the case is made for such an "easement by necessity," it yet matters to me whether that claim is good and similarly consistent with liberty, or not. As it is further the case that (apparently) "easement by necessity" is a real-world thing that actually happens, as well -- and since it goes by the name "easement" as much as things that you and I find to be proper -- then I think it's worth while to try to suss out the right from the wrong.

Let's take Puzzle Peddler's original scenario a bit further:

A man named Karl owns a piece of property, and I have purchased all of the property around his. When he purchased his property, he neglected to contractually arrange for access to and from it. I don't want him on my property, and I don't want to sell him any of it.

He calls up Judge Grames and Judge SoftwareNerd, who grant him access to my property against my will. And they even charge me and fine me for "imprisoning" him. They give him an easement which runs from his land across mine to my neighbor Bob's land (in this hypothetical, the world is Objectivist, and all property is therefore privately owned -- there are no public roads).

Bob declares that he also doesn't want Karl on his property, so Judges Grames and SoftwareNerd charge him with "imprisonment" as well, fine him, and grant Karl an easement through his property to the nearest privately owned highway, which is owned by Tom.

By this time, Tom has heard of Karl's unjust legal actions against me and Bob, and he announces that he also doesn't want Karl on his property. So Karl once again calls Judges Grames and SoftwareNerd, and they charge Tom with the "imprisonment" of Karl, fine him, grant Karl an easement through Tom's property, and instruct Tom that he does not have the right to refuse to allow Karl to drive on Tom's privately-owned highway.

Is that the way that some of you imagine the Objectivist concept of private property works?

J

By that reasoning, any solution to the problem justifies itself. For example, another solution to the problem would be for the government to confiscate a thin strip of property from the owner of the surrounding land and give it to the owner of the surrounded land. Yet another solution would be for one party to kill the other party and seize his land. Grames' "justification" would apply to both: "What justifies the concepts of confiscation or the killing of one of the parties involved is the problem it solves." And both solutions would be as lacking in Objectivist philosophical justification as the solution of the owner of the surrounding property being forced to grant an easement to the owner of the surrounded property.

In effect, Grames has offered nothing but a pragmatic solution in which the ends justify the means, but he has not offered an Objectivist philosophical justification. Basically: One party needs another's property to access his own, and he has the power of the initiatory force of government behind him, therefore his need and willingness to initiate force takes precedence over the other owner's property rights.

I think a more rational approach to the issue would be to ask what type of punishment or restitution for trespassing is justified according to Objectivism. If I cross your property without your permission, and you take me to court for doing so, what is a just punishment? Probably a fine? If so, then the cost of my accessing my surrounded property is the amount of the fine.

J

Well, this has been perfectly lovely. Men telling women -- against their protest in this very thread -- what they supposedly are like, what they think and feel and want and that, among other things, "romance" requires them "to confound and agitate" men.

But if a woman finds that she does not conform to this description, a way out is offered. Perhaps she simply is not a "good heterosexual woman."

Unbelievable.

Mysticism is always hard to discuss rationally.

I'll take stab for fun! I would agree that they are not a problem.

Here is my breakdown...



Monopoly – Prices to high…

Then someone can undercut them. The only way to keep prices high and stop competition is to forcibly restrict their access, which is government coercion. Without force this is not an issue since a litigate monopoly can only exist if the customers are universally satisfied enough to make the profitable breaking point of a ROI unreachable for any competitor.



Information Asymmetry

Why would anyone buy something without knowledge? If people don’t buy it then the producer will have to negotiate with the demands for knowledge. Besides, in the computer/internet age is this even a valid argument anymore? It sounds like a straw horse.



Toll Goods

A toll is a fee and is the price to use something. Don’t like the price? Fine, don’t use it. The producer will either limit himself to a nitch market or be forced to change his price to get customers back. This really is supply/demand 101.



Common Pool of Goods

Did the person who made this chart actual make the Tragedy of the Commons a market problem? Really? That’s ballsy.



Pure Public Goods

I love this one and a real peeve of mine, the idea that certain goods only exist because the Government is creating them. It is laughable to think we wouldn’t have a road or I would not have a water pipe going into my house if City Hall never existed. If the free market can create and launch a billion dollar satellite into geosynchronous orbit so I can call my parents anywhere in America I’m sure it can run $50 worth of pipe into my house. Good @#$% God(s).

Is there a reason to choose to live?

I agree that this choice is not an ethical choice, as the choice to live is prior to ethics. Ethics tells one, given that a man wants to live, how he must live. But is there no reason to choose to live?

Yes, the choice is pre-ethical. But nevertheless, there is guidance in choosing to live. The choice to live is not arbitrary. Why? Because the valuing of pleasure over pain is hard-wired -- and the nature of the world is such that happiness, rather than suffering, is the rule. So although it is not an ethical choice, it is a rational choice. And it is unique in this way. This choice is the anteroom of ethics.

Consider a man for whom this is not the case -- for whom life is suffering, with no prospect of change. In this case, the rational choice might be to not continue in life -- and he could not be faulted for not wanting to continue in a life that is pain.

Your thoughts welcome; be well.

On the strength of the first few sentences of each of the first two links, I can make a few points, the first of which is that the earlier posters are right: you needn't worry.

Rand was talking about learned, chosen behavior specific to rational beings, not instinctive (to use a dangerous term) behavior of non-rational species. What goes for one does not go for the other. If one of us is talking about chess and the other is talking about banking, and we both use the word "check," you can be confident that we aren't talking about the same object. So with "selfish" or "altruistic" behavior.

The articles conflate altruism with cooperation or good will. Rand dealt with that one long before evolutionary biology became middlebrow trendy.

Rand did not say that human nature is naturally selfish. She said that we have to identify the selfish thing to do and commit to it deliberately, all by a voluntary process. To say that it comes naturally is a deterministic position that would have been odious to her. The standard way of putting across this bit of misinformation used to be to call her a Hobbesian.

I think it's a mistake to assume that a "true friendship" is necessarily platonic. Sexual attraction does not have to get in the way of friendship. You can either choose to put that aside and not act on it, become "friends with benefits" or it could also lead to a romantic relationship. Those are all viable options depending on context.

For instance, i'm attracted to my friend. She knows it, because i've told her so. Why would that be a problem? Both are cool with it, plus she's got her husband and I can always find somone else to sleep with.

If you find two people of the opposite sex that are attractive and like each other there's always going to be some sort of sexual attraction. However, there's always the option to just deal with it appropriately.

Not to discount the value of the things you mention... parents, education (whatever its source), friends, teachers, rolemodels, etc., are all potentially sources of great value. And its hard (if not impossible) to imagine my particular successes in life without many/most/all of them.

However, another person given those same advantages/opportunities may have done more or less than I. Even a great teacher will not teach a student indisposed to learn, and of people raised among libraries, some will opt to read Shakespeare, some will read Harlequin romances, and some will use the pages to start a bonfire.

To put this another way, imagine driving from New York to Los Angeles. Such a journey would not be possible without the existence of the car and the roads and the gas stations. Yet would we doubt that the success or failure of their journey depends on their decision to undertake it, and their skill in executing their plans? The world is awash in opportunity, and without such opportunity a man can accomplish nothing. Yet when a man accomplishes something as opposed to nothing (as others may do), the success is rightly his.

Dr. Peikoff actually talks about this in one of his podcasts, and I more or less agree with him. Someone can be a valuable sexual partner (a source of values for you and also the kind of person you wish to express those values with), without you being completely in love with them.

I also think that it's necessary to learn about sex and your own sexuality/enjoyment/desires as well as those of your proposed partner before you can go all out and say, "I'm romantically in love with this person", and the ultimate way to do this, of course, is to give it a try. I don't believe in Platonic love, and I think that when people say "I'm so in love with this person" but they don't have an actual relationship with that person (and they certainly haven't had sex), what they mean is "I'm infatuated with this person". You have to bring the relationship into actual expression and then you can determine whether it's full romantic love or something else valuable but not the Full Monty.

That's not to say you should have sex with just anyone on the off chance that it might be valuable to you. You should be reasonably sure going in (as sure as you can be about a volitional person's character) that you're going to derive value and satisfaction from the experience. You just don't have to know beforehand whether it'll be Ultimate Value or not, because, well, you really can't.

I don't know.

Honestly? Rather than try to figure whether it's "proper" to feel such a thing (like enjoyment), for myself I just try to understand things as they are and then feel accordingly -- whatever those feelings might be. Though, as now, sometimes it's important and instructive to try to examine one's feelings, to determine their nature and source.

On the subject of the guilty suffering, I don't believe that I feel "enjoyment." There's a certain sense of satisfaction that comes with knowing that justice is done. For instance, when my wife and I watch any kind of true crime story, we'll certainly root that the murderer (or whatever) get caught and receive his comeuppance. But I don't think I relish the thought of the punishment itself or the suffering it will produce. Rather... I think I regret its overall necessity; I regret that the crime was committed in the first place. I don't smile when I think of the penal system, or smile to think of all the guilty who suffer there (never mind the innocent). I feel confident in their purpose, but I rather wish that fewer people committed crimes and that fewer punishments were necessary. I think my attitude towards such criminals is closer to pity.

As my wife and I prepare for our first child, I sometimes imagine about that child's transgresses, and my role in providing discipline (and yes, punishment). I do not expect to take any pleasure in that, though I regard it as necessary and moral. I do not expect that my child's suffering will ever make me happy, even (or perhaps especially) when my child deserves it.

And I know that you've specified "monstrous injustices" and the attitude of the "victim," though I thankfully have little personal experience with such things. There is... one family member that does come to mind, admittedly . If I heard that she suffered greatly, I think I would nod in appreciation in the sense of "I knew that something like this would result," but even there, I don't think I would "enjoy" it, exactly.

When I heard news of Bin Laden's death, my feelings were of relief, and my thoughts were something like, "oh thank goodness," but I don't think I gave any thought to whether he had suffered. If I knew that he had, while I believe I would again acknowledge that he "had that coming to him"... even there, no, I don't think I would myself take pleasure in that knowledge, or "enjoy" it. What if my family had been among Bin Laden's victims? Would that make a difference for me? Maybe it would. But I don't believe I can honestly say.

Perhaps this is somewhat analogous to my feelings on war? I'm no pacifist, you know? I think that some wars are absolutely just, moral, necessary. And yet... and yet, I don't think I take any pleasure in it. I regard war as frightening and frequently terrible, and I regret its sometimes necessity.

It is sometimes necessary to amputate a diseased limb. To put down a rabid dog, though once a family pet. To punish one's child. To war against a neighboring country. To incarcerate (and perhaps execute) a criminal. These are moral actions. And yet, I believe myself to be orientated towards production, creation, growth, and I take my pleasures in those activities. Where destruction is necessary for such growth, I accept the fact. But it may be too contrary to my grain for me to actually enjoy that destruction.

It is not the fact that you should live assuming death is "never outside of your control". The point is that you should live assuming that your life is yours to control and the good is to live it. You only get one shot at life so live it. Live to the best you can with the time you got. Death is a metaphysical fact no one can avoid. I'm sot sure I would want to even call that a bad thing since the option of death is what moves us to live. Don't focus on the negative fact we will someday die, but focus on the fact that we need to live.

Now, how this plays out for someone who is later in life moving close to joining the choir invisible is contextual. One thing is very certain however, one should live by one's own standards and death only needs to be the last thing you do.

No one can be free from their own identity. If that is what some like to think, then yes they are not that free. The freedom in consciousness is freedom from external control. Your question implies that real freedom would require there be no internal components or processes over time underlying thought, which is impossible. Without internal identity there would be no identity at all.

To be is to be something definite and particular. Things that exist, existents, extend over space and time. Thoughts have an existential form over a small space in our heads and short spans of time. It could not be otherwise.

Not precisely. The Objectivist case does indeed rest upon the fact that each individual must think, decide, and act for himself in order to achieve the best life possible. This comes from the self-oriented nature of life; no one else can do your living for you. However, this does not mean that objectively true moral principles are impossible to form, or that these principles do not apply to people who do not recognize them. Deciding on the right or wrong action in a particular case is indeed an individual decision, but there is an objectively right and an objectively wrong way to do so. The Objectivist case for limited government does not rest on the notion that no one ever knows what is best for anyone else; in fact, Objectivist moral principles tell us precisely what the best way to live is, for everyone. We need limited government because the only way for a person to truly follow moral principle and flourish is to understand it himself and apply it individually to his own life, a task no one else can do for him.

intellectualammo seems to be saying here that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" have no meaning outside of a human-made social system which assigns these concepts to particular actions. The Objectivist view is precisely the opposite; that even alone on a desert island, given that one wants to survive, there is a right and a wrong way to act. Right and wrong are not fully human creations; they arise out of the choice to live, and therefore arise through human involvement, but after that point we can't simply decide that something right or wrong by societal decree. The facts of survival and flourishing make it so. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't make the initiation of force wrong; it is wrong because it is contrary to the nature and requirements of human life. LFC simply codifies moral principle in an objective legal system.

intellectualammo, your doctrine of "might makes right" confuses the descriptive and the normative. More precisely, it does away with the normative by saying that whatever happens is right because, by definition, the person trying to make it happen had the might to make it so. That would be fine as a descriptive statement, replacing "that was right" with simply "that happened," but putting it forth as normative in addition to descriptive simply codifies a vacuous moral system.

I think it just stems from different requirements for proof between the public and a court of law. The court requires original documents in certain cases that most people may not think is necessary.

I found an article that has the relevant video at the bottom of the NJ trial. From listening to it carefully (turn the volume up because the sound quality is very bad), Obama's lawyer admitted that the image presented on the internet was never intended to be a Hawaii certified legal document and would not be offered as evidence for Obama being a natural born citizen. When pressed further, Obama's lawyer said it would not be so presented because there was nothing in the New Jersey law that stipulated that one's natural born citizenship had to be legally documented before getting on the Presidential ballot. The spin on the right and throughout the Tea Party affiliates is that therefore Obama's layer had admitted that the internet image is a forgery, but this was not something Obama's lawyer agreed to -- she only agreed that it was not a certified copy and that it would not be used in court. So, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what was put on the long-form image, since Obama never said it was a certified copy in the first place.

I would call it a gross over simplification, but really that whole page is. It was written in the context of a brief explanation of freewill so I would recommend thinking of it in that light. That said, I doubt many Objectivists would argue that freewill exists independently of existence. A man can not will himself to float into the air or make a cheeseburger materialize in front of him. Choices have to be made with regard to something and that something is reality. What(I assume) they mean is that if your given a choice to drink either a glass of water or a glass of cyanide, your choice isn't predetermined in any way by the facts of your existence. You bring your rational faculties to bare on the circumstance before you and make the best choice freely, within the context of those choices available to you. If those are your only choices then you can't choose orange juice, but that's not the same thing as being determined, philosophically. The relevent part is your freewill applied to the specific reality you happen to be in.

Same with the more complex issues of genes and upbringing. Those things massively shape the choices available to you, but they do not free you from the burden of being responsible for the choices you do make with regard to what is available to you.

Obviously you would hold those things as relevant in determining someone's moral worth. Making a million dollars from scratch is a world away from making a million dollars after inheriting a million first. Likewise in considering a disability or emotional disorder.

Mother Nature doesn't exist, it's just a metaphor. But all human knowledge is the result of applying logic to reality (and logic itself is also based in reality).

The laws of physics are the result of physicists applying logic to reality (to physical reality).

The reason why there is a right way and a wrong way for an individual to act is because of reality. We derive moral principles from reality (the reality of the human condition, and of human nature), by applying logic to it.

The principles that guide human interactions are devised by applying logic to reality (to the reality of human societies and to the moral principles we also derived from reality). That is the source of individual rights: logic applied to reality.

Whenever people form a society, the principles derived from the reality of the human condition, human nature, and human societies, should be applied. If they aren't, there will be negative consequences. The source of those consequences is reality. (if what you're calling Mother Nature is in fact reality, then, in keeping with your metaphor, Mother Nature will bat more than an eye: she will come down on the transgressors with absolute might and certainty). You can count on those consequences with the same degree of certainty that you can count on a plane dropping from the sky if you shut its engines.