Leonid

Not by means of revolution but simply by cutting funds. If CEO makes an outrageous decision, values of shares will drop, people will disinvest and the company will go bankrupt.

No, it doesn't. Government property could be privatized. To control and to own is not the same. Hospital manager controls hospital property but doesn't own it. He's a payed employee. The government should be exactly the same.

Quite right. Your correction is gratefully accepted. For sure there is more than one way to deal with this issue. And the term "sell" is also wrong. I meant a distribution of the value of the property which is currently owned by government in the form of shares, that is- a privatization. People then could trade these shares but government will use the property.

Founding Fathers had an extensive education in the field of political philosophy. They were profound thinkers. Obama is simply randomly selected nobody. If everybody were be allowed to volunteer as a legislator, that would bring hundreds of Obamas. You may forget than about objectivity and impartiality.

First, the process of translation of political theory into concrete and specific practices is a legislation. And this is not an easy process, definitely not superfluous. Second, it requires certain skills and educational background. Not everybody could volunteer to be a legislator as not everybody could be a neurosurgeon. Even firefighters need certain skills.

The role of government is not that of militia. In Ayn Rand words " the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control" So the proper function of government is to provide the set of rigorous objective and impartial rules, that is-laws. As for the property which law enforced agencies use, people who subscribe for their services would voluntary pay for it, as they pay today to security companies.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. i Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,19 Therefore in capitalist society the government property also should be privately owned. The only way to do that is to sell government property to the public in the form of shares. If government doesn't perform, people would disinvest and such a government will fall.If you don't want to stick to the principle then the only way which is open to you is a concrete bound empiricism which is pragmatism.

That would contradict Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism and will allow some political elite to rule the public. Government represents the public and therefore all property owned by government is public property. However ownership doesn't always mean control. If I own few hundred shares of Microsoft it doesn't mean I control it, not directly anyway. Government should control the property which is needed for it legitimate function , but property itself should be privately owned in the form of government shares.

Dreams represent a content of one's mind when senses represent reality. Whoever cannot distinguish between these two really runs into a big trouble. Imagination from the other hand is a mechanism of anticipation which drives man's actions. It's essentially a mechanism of survival.

In the truly capitalist society all property is privately owned and that includes government property. Therefore such a society should develop a mechanism which will allow a private ownership on government property, be it a share holding or something else. By buying government shares people will fund government and the same time would be able to control its function. They could vote with their wallets so to speak.

There is no difference between government and public property.They are essentially the same. Government disposes property which it controls and therefore owns it. Government also owns monetary value of its property. When government sells its assets, it doesn't distribute the money to taxpayers but uses it on its own discretion. Coercive or even voluntary collected taxes don't make taxpayers stock holders, they cannot sell their shares and use the money as they want. In Ayn Rand words such a property " will always be taken over by some political “elite,” by a small clique which will then rule the public"

Ayn Rand described public property as a collectivist fiction ( Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, pg 128). Yet she advocated a government that protects individual rights by running police, courts of law and Army. Such a government for its proper function will require a property worth few hundred billions if not trillions of dollars. By its very nature this property is public. How free society would resolve such a contradiction? Any thoughts?

This is a descriptive definition which Ayn Rand used in developing of her argument of life as an ultimate value. the definition of value is everything which promotes life. In Ayn Rand words " It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.” ( AS). "It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.” (VOS)

I'm familiar with this story. In Holland people didn't cooperate with Nazis and didn't initiate genocide. Anne Frank had been arrested by Germans. Dutch actually hided her.

Materialists are essentially reductionists. They don't believe that anything exists expect atoms, subatomic particles and their interactions. For them mind and reason are physical phenomena and free will is an illusion since all physical processes are determined. The mind as independent phenomenon doesn't exist for them. they are obsessed with neurophysiological studies in order to understand free will and concept formation.

Yes, French, Hungarians and others as well. Very few nations didn't take part in Hitler's final solution. I think it was Holland and Bulgaria.

Pols weren't the only ones. The same applies to Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and many others. Antisemitism knows no national borders.

Because it's not always the case. Many infantile egoists don't ask others to live for them. They simply expect to be provided, period. They view goods and services as metaphysically given natural resources and think that the job of government to distribute them equally. As President Obama, an infantile egoist number one said " You didn't make it!". And this is the core of the problem-the inability to distinguish between man made and metaphysically given, an example of how the wrong epistemology leads to the wrong ethics.

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand So, the people who live for the sake of others are altruists. How do we call those who ask others to live for them? I'd call them infantile egoists. For the small child who totally depends on the others it's only natural to ask his parents to live for him. He doesn't consider their needs or capacities, everything is given to him. The only thing he has to do is to ask. The problem starts when one keeps this attitude in his adult life. He doesn't necessary turns to be a ruthless egotist who walks over corpses but he expects that others will provide all his needs. This is a root of the entitlement culture which is a hallmark of our times. The inherent infantilism of our age is only too evident-adult people simply refuse to take charge on their life and resent everybody who did and succeed. Instead to throw tantrums as toddlers do, they demonstrate, occupy private and public spaces, damage property in their claim of equality-read of unearned. The growing Nanny state which increasingly takes over the responsibility of adult people on their own life only supports this trend of infantile egoism. The state in which never growing herds of Peter Pans see a substitute for parents and God Almighty himself , suppose to provide everything and tell them what to do or not to do in order to be healthy and happy and to protect them from those who allegedly steal the wealth which these old age children never created. They never ever consider the needs of creators or the source of the wealth. For them, as for any 3 years old or prehistoric hunter-gatherer the things are simply out there and have to be collected and distributed equally. We, the adults who know the source of wealth have to stop this carnage once and for all. The only way to do it is as old feminists used to say " stop to feed the rat". Or in Ayn Rand words we have to stop the sanction of the victims and watch the children grow.

The short answer to this question is " NO". Self awareness means free will, freedom of choice and rights. To switch off such a computer would mean a murder. Moreover nobody can own a being of volitional consciousness, that would mean a contradiction in terms. If Bob still want to use this computer, he will have to learn a cooperation and trade. And that brings up another question-what one can trade with computer, what are computer's needs? Been a machine it doesn't initiate self-generated actions of self-sustenance, totally depended on energy supply by Bob and doesn't face an alternative of life and death. Consciousness, let alone self-consciousness is not an end in itself. It is a tool of survival which computer doesn't need. Therefore consciousness cannot precede needs of survival and the whole scenario is a contradiction.

Just show to him accidentally AS the book and tell him that he's too small to read and understand it. I can promise to you he will learn it by heart.

That is true and that would be made the whole affair much more difficult for him and much more interesting for the readers.

And what about Dagny? Do you mean he fell in love with her by default, just because Lilian was such a bad person? I don't think so.

This article is a typical example of dropping context and inability to distinguish between defining and non-defining characteristics of the fetus and newborn child

I think Ayn Rand made Rearden's life too easy by making his wife, Lilian such a bitch. If she were loving, understanding person and sharing his ideas would he be able to drop her so easily for sake of Dagny?