BrassDragon

I didn't think Colin Powell was considered "libertarian," so I did some learnin'. He doesn't sound too libertarian to me, but he sounds like he's partly there. Of course, there's the whole question of what "libertarian" means anyway. I would say the Powell Doctrine would be a rational way to wage a war, as long as "international support" is recognized as being optimal, but not necessary. All things considered, I'd definitely vote for Colin Powell if he was up for election facing Bush and Clinton, and probably any other Republican/Democratic pairing, especially considering his stance on war, which is certainly one of the most important national issues of the day.

Those two examples make grammatical sense to me - but it seems to me that the first is the equivalent of the sentence Rand is using, which would mean she should have used minds. In both cases (Rand's use and your first example), we're referring to "men," not "man." "Men" would require a plural possessive, "their," and a plural possessed object, "minds," unless they all have the same mind. Perhaps if you give me some more general examples like this I can figure it out. Thanks - and sorry to ask you to play English teacher.

This is from John Galt's speech. My problem is, grammatically, shouldn't mind be minds? If so, was this corrected in later editions? This appears at the top of p. 949 of my copy of the book. As far as the edition - it was published by Signet and simply says "This is an authorized reprint of a hardcover edition from Random House Books," and it seems to be a very early edition, and belonged to my parents.

He's part of it. By "run the government" I mean carry out the day-to-day duties of government (arresting criminals, protecting from foreign invaders and the like, holding trials, enforcing contracts, &tc.). They could, but a person could also attempt to impose an irrational government and disenfranchise voters by creating a moral aptitude test that is poorly written, or in a number of other ways. There's always going to be ways for people to potentially corrupt government, no matter what system you have, and people always have the recourse of revolution. I don't think my suggestion would be inherently more corruptible than yours, but that doesn't make it better. I'll flush out why I think it's better further on in this post. That actually souds pretty good. But I think there's a problem of practical implementation. Let's say there's a place with no government, and some rational would-be citizens move in and want to establish one. A group of them starts pooling donated money. They then must decide whether to, for example, administer morality tests to everyone in the place, or simply to use the money to implement a government that enforces the just rule of law. I think the latter would be more practical and would intuitively feel right. If elections don't really matter, because they don't change what the just rule of law is but only who carries out the government, why have them? Why not just let the people paying for government choose who to pay to administer it, and what to buy to administer it with (i.e. firearms, police cars, courthouses)? (These are more rhetorical questions, but feel free to answer specifically if you're coming to different conclusions than I am.) I was just saying that the idea of a morality test reminds me of various things used by Southerners in the past to excluse blacks from voting during the "Jim Crow era." That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad - but it is corruptible, just like those tests were corruptible, and then were corrupted. I don't think there's any "right to vote" at all. It's one of those made-up rights applicable to democracies, but I'm not proposing democracy. I totally agree here. You're right that it's not "owning" the government. The system I proposed just seems to be the most directly practical for the implementation and continuance of government if government is funded by a group of voluntary donors. Well, sheriff was just an example. Normally sheriffs and other such officials are chosen by higher-up officials, that's fine. I'm just saying at some point, you have to choose who is administering your government, and I was using "sheriff" as an example. It could be president, or mayor, or whatever, depending on the level of government and how it's structured. Again, I agree here. But I think the people who would pass the test would be the same as the people donating money. People with the intelligence to have money to donate will be able to learn to pass the test, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. The test is effective if you're trying to cut off the chaff, but if you have a donation system, you've already done so as effectively as possible.

Several people have established in this thread that when government properly carries out its function, voting doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter who the sherrif is, if he carries out the law. We simply have the political problem of determining who actually runs the government. No - my system implies that the donation of money shows interest in maintaining rational government. How would it ever be possible to write a "fair" moral aptitude test? That smacks of Jim Crow. Same thing will poll taxes, per se - both make the unfair assumption that some people are more qualified to vote, based on some standard that is not absolute. It's the same principle applied to ownership of a corporation. Sure, you're not "owning" the government, but you're paying for it, so you ought to have a proportional vote. But you have to have some form of decision-making on matters like who will be the new sherrif. I'm prescribing a form of decision-making, i.e. a political solution, but one that makes sense ethically. Anyway, I guess you could say what I'm proposing wouldn't really be an election, because probably only a small part of the population would be donating. Neither is passing a "moral aptitude test," or being a "wealthy landowner," or being "self-sufficient" proof of wisdom necessary to select a good government. My solution is "intuitive" because it applies notions of property rights we've already all internalized. If I buy a police car for the government, I do so under the condition that I pick who drives it, just like if I own a certain part of a company, I get to help pick who's the CEO.

Well, let's start from the assumption that government is financed by donations, because this is the only way I can think of for government to get money without initiation of force. (I thought about contract enforcement some more, and I think that's something the government should be doing inherently, just like providing police protection.) If I'm paying for government, shouldn't I get to say how it is run? I.e. by whom and in what fashion? Not what it does (uphold individual rights), but how it is run, i.e. who is the chief executive in charge of the military, all the way down to who is the local police chief? If I don't get to say this, in proportion to my donation, then who does get to say it? I can't think of anyone. Also, if my neighbor pays a penny into the government as a donation, and I pay $1,000, it doesn't seem fair for him to demand a vote equal to mine in, say, choosing the local sherrif. And his vote doesn't need to be equal to mine as long as the sherrif holds both he and I to the same standard - the rule of law. I hope this helps shed some additional light on what I'm thinking. I don't think it could really get much more specific than this as to why this seems fair - it just seems inherently intuitive, like "you get what you pay for." Plus, this "power" could serve as a slight impetus for donation.

I don't think it's possible to determine who gets to vote until it's determined how government will be financed. If I am helping pay for government, I damn well better get a vote at least proportional to what I'm paying in. And I certainly hope nobody who's not paying for it is getting to vote at all. In a proper government that respects individual rights, this wouldn't allow the people paying for government to take control. It would just allow them to choose who is overseeing the police, the military, the courts, &tc. But I've never seen a good answer to how government will be financed. I've heard contract enforcement mentioned, as well as donations (the "if Bush can get x million for his campaign, why can't we as a nation fund the whole government" argument), but I'm not really sure either way is sufficient. I know there's a thread on this somewhere, but from what I remember it was long and digressive, and didn't contain any particularly helpful solutions. (Now that I think about it, maybe enough donations could be garnered if donating gave you a proportional vote. And, this would automatically identify those who have an incentive in maintaining a capitalist society, which is what GreedyCapitalist is advocating. I don't think just "wealthy landowners" or "the rich" is enough to identify those people, because there's no objective standard of "wealthy" or "rich".)

Well, I think the issue is the nature of property. From my reading (including some, but not all, of the Objectivist canon), I have two conceptions of property: -Property you own by virtue of using it. I.e. someone who is homesteading in early America, where there are no established property lines, deeds, etc. -Property you own through a deed. For example, a house you buy in a neighborhood that's already built. The question is (assuming these two conceptions are valid), under which do the air molecules (or ambient silence) fall? The radio station case would suggest the first - the radio station is using a natural property (the airwaves), so they weren't really available for the person who moved in to buy in the first place, and he never "owned" them by virute of using them. On the other hand, when you hold property through the second means, doesn't it automatically make sense you'd own the natural properties of the direct area you own, besides just the physical land? Doesn't it make sense you'd be buying the airspace directly around the house you bought, and thus the "property" of ambient silence? I think the only way to solve these competing "conceptions" is to reduce them to something more basic, i.e. pick one or the other. I think the first conception is definitely valid, but I feel the second one is only valid by virtue of the first one. So in other words, if you buy a house in a noise neighborhood, you don't buy the "air molecules" with it, they're already in use. If you buy a house in a quiet neighborhood, you "own" the ambient silence if you take advantage of it, i.e. like to sit in your yard and enjoy not being in a loud place. This conception would suggest to me, however, that it's not valid to own large tracts of land that aren't being used. The paper company could own hundreds of acre of forest, because they're waiting for the trees to grow up so they could cut them down, but you couldn't just own a hundred acres of forest just to own them and have them, if you live in another state and don't put it to any use. Somebody else could legitimately come in and begin to use the land for something, and it's no longer yours. All this seems to make sense to me, but I bet it's pretty controversial. Any ideas, anyone? (We may want to start a new thread. If no all-powerful being comes and makes a new thread of this, and I need more input, I might end up starting a new one.)

I really enjoyed this as well. Keep 'em coming!

Sorry for being part of a revival of a year-old thread, but I just wanted to say in response to the quote above above - I was also bothered by that, until I decided the train in Bangkok which goes around the world could be symbolic of the transcontinental train in Atlas Shrugged. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but after a song like 2112, why not? I don't have the album, but I know Rush mentioned Rand as an inspiration on the album cover of 2112 .

Ah, I see what you're saying. Well, my thoughts are - if somebody can make a curriculum for kids to learn from the Bible, surely somebody can make a curriculum for kids to learn from OPAR! (Now, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.) Instead of The Little Red Hen, you could have The Little Rational Dagny Taggart, and Peikoff could write and illustrate it himself.

Even if Wesley was from Massachusetts and not England, your statement wouldn't contradict mine, which I think was your intent.

Then again, they say young John Wesley learned to read solely from the only book his family owned - the Bible.

I also remember The Little Red Hen. I think childrens' books should convey a positive, perhaps Objectivist, sense of life. That's what stories and novels are supposed to do, anyway, as opposed to teaching specific, rational principles and the conclusion of logical thinking. Such an influences could, I think, be hugely benefitial to a child.

You're misunderstanding the way I changed the fruit analogy a little bit. You eat food, and you have sex with a woman. Eating Emeril's food is an expression of value for that food, not for Emiril, in the same way having sex with a woman is an expression of value for that woman, not for her mother, or her genetic code, or the environment she grew up in. And why is having sex with a woman an expression of value for her? It just is, inherently. For the same reason eating something is an expression of value for the food you choose to eat. Yeah, but I bet it wasn't a psychological need when you were my age, or at least for the first 20 years of your life (or whenever you became sexually active on a regular basis). Also, I think you can change your psychological "needs," because psychology is largely subservient to rationality. Finally, I think your fiancée would appreciate it if you wouldn't be so grumpy when she's not "in the mood"; the last girlfriend I had didn't appreciate it, and I say i had for a reason. Why would you be repulsed by horse testicles? I'm not kidding; I think the French kings used to always eat the testicles of animals killed on the hunt, as an honor, and I think some people may still do that, like eating bull testicles in Spain (somebody help me out with my cultural references). If horse testicles taste good, I'd eat them, and I bet Emeril could pull that off. Of course I agree with you that I'd be repulsed by having sex with a goat even though it might feel similar to a woman, for the reason I've stated, the same reason I'd be repulsed by having sex with a woman whose mind was "in the sewer." I mean what's the difference between having sex with a woman you detest and a goat? I see the same false premises in both cases. I think these are very important questions to be asked, it's been good to think them over some.

Animals don't have rights, and neither do dead bodies. You don't need permission from them to have sex with them, although you would need permission from the owner/ownership yourself. Although again, let me stress, if sex is an expression of value for whatever you're having sex with, having sex with one of these entities IS wrong, if values are a product of the mind and rational self-interest. I don't like Rand's use of the word "spiritual," simply because that word is usually used in a context of mysticism (religion, etc.). Of course, that's not the way she's using the word - to her, "spirituality" had to do with the mind, not the "soul." (Forgive the pedantry, I'm no expert, but this is my interpretation of her.)

It makes sense to me that one would "own" the air molecules above his or her property. It helps to bring up the air molecules, because that provides something concrete to go on--i.e. the air above your property isn't just "empty space," which I suppose is the error I was making. I wish there was a solution that didn't require understanding a scientific concept (air molecules) that isn't just plain evident, but heck, it works. Thanks for your insight, DavidOdden. So under this reasoning, it seems to make sense that within reason, a person would "own" the water space reasonably in front of his riverside property. For a person upstream to pollute would constitute trespass in the same way allowing loud noise to enter a neighbor's yard would - you're putting a product of your own creation into their territory, which is a violation of their rights. It would also make sense that it's immoral to pollute the air heavily, because that pollution will travel over other peoples' airspace. Am I making sense here?

My answer: Because sex is by its nature an expression of value, you have a pyschological contradiction if you have sex with a woman you don't value. Your body is saying, "I value this," and your mind is saying, "I don't value this." My personal experience--feeling terribly/guilty/bad after having sex with someone I don't value, even a long time later--seems to me to me confirm this fact. I disagree with both of these premises. Sex isn't a psychological need - you can do just fine without it, and many people do. Sex cannot also be said to be just "physical desire," because a goat or something could provide a lot of the same physical stimulation as could a woman, but you probably don't have any physical desire to have sex with a goat. (Or a moose, as the case may be ) Rather, sex is "physical desire creating value." You create value by having sex with someone you value, and achieving value is one thing (besides, say, metaphysical joy) that leads to happiness. If you're analogizing sex with fruit, I think sex with a prostitute could be said to be rotten fruit. For the above reasons - it doesn't create value, it destroys value (or creates negative value). As a footnote to my comments - as far as I know, they're consistent with Rand's writings, and thus Objectivism. If this is the case, it's not surprising (to me) that many people on this forum would feel that sex with someone you don't value is immoral.

Thanks to both of you for responding. I understand that a person owns the physical land on which his property is built, but I don't understand that there is a right not to have sound waves travel through airspace above the land you own. I'd appreciate a more thorough explanation. On your second point - How is this simply a property damage issue? Is the river in front of your beachfront home your property? I think not. The actual beach, yes; the water in front of it, probably not. But I'm not asking the question because I have the answers. Again, I'd like a more thorough explanation from anyone who can give one. On your third point - Of course it doesn't invalidate rights. But most people have NOT signed such a contract before moving in (unless perhaps in an apartment lease), so if your neighbor has not signed such a contract, are you devoid of any "right" to a quiet ambient noise level? Vladimir Berkov--all of what you said makes sense--but what if Metallica moves in next to you in a suburban neighborhood and starts playing loud music all the time in the back yard? This may seem like quite a hypothetical, but I'm trying to provide a good explanation to the problem to a pretty stubborn non-Objectivist, so I think it's an important hypothetical to consider, and I figure there's probably a rational solution, since I've not yet found a "problem" that doesn't have one.

So if I live next to you, do I have the right to blast Nine Inch Nails music that's loud enough to keep you awake at night? Is there anything you can do about this other than building a wall or moving away? Also, if we live on the river and you're right next to me downstream, do I have the right to pump my raw sewage into the river in order to dispose of it, ruining your beach and swimming area? We'll assume there was no contract I signed before the property was sold to me, stipulating that I wouldn't "disturb the peace" in the neighborhood. I think the fundamental problem is that a stream, or the ambient noise in the neighborhood, is neither mine nor yours, although it is something we share. Clearly, we can't both dispose of them the way we want, because my doing that precludes your doing that, in our scenario. So what is the rational way to solve the conflict? (Just so you know... even though this is my 3rd post... I do mean these to be legitimate questions, not attacks on Objectivism, which I accept as far as I know and have a good understanding of... hopefully my question wouldn't suggest otherwise, although I know it might.) *Edited by poster, for clarity.

I've been discussing Objectivism with a friend via e-mail, and I've been able to give convincing and well thought-out arguments for most of his objections. But the topic of "noise pollution" has evaded me, and I admit, I need some help. Does a person have the right to play loud music on his or her property if it disturbs the neighbors? If not, how can laws be created to reflect this (i.e. would there just have to be an arbitrary number of decibels that cannot be exceeded, or is there an objective way to determine how much noise is too much)? My initial thought was that a person has the right to make as much noise as he likes on his property, and if it disturbs the neighbors, they can move, build a wall, etc. But what about light pollution? What about polluting a public resource, like a river, where people like to swim? It seems to come down to a problem of "property" that seems to be "public" by nature (i.e. the air, water, etc.) My friends says he has a right to enjoy his property without a neighbor disturbing him by blasting loud music constantly, and that seems to make intuitive sense to me, so I'm at an impasse.

I've been lurking for a while, but I'm ready to ask some questions of my own and perhaps jump in on some of the discussions, so I thought I'd register. I've been interested in Objectivism since my senior year of high school, when I read AS, The Fountainhead and The Romantic Manifesto, but I was interested in philosophy in general (and at one point, religion) long before that. Now I'm a sophomore in college, undecided major but possibly philosophy and econ or philosophy and English, or journalism. I'm interested in becoming a novelist, but also interested in being practical and producing something of value, which I'm pretty confident I can do as a novelist but not 100%. I'd consider myself an "objectivist," i.e. basically an Objectivist - I can't say anything substantive I disagree with Rand on, but I can't say for sure there's not anything, and I'd prefer to approach the topic from the standpoint of me figuring out "my own" rational philosophy, and getting help when I need it from Rand's works and Objectivists.