jimmyg12

I was discussing the basics of Objectivism with a friend the other day and wanted to clarify a gap I have in my understanding. I'm going to state what I understand as Objectivist philosophy and then ask my question. Feel free to disagree with anything I say, as I am still relatively new to this philosophy. Here goes. As humans, what distinguishes us from animals is our capacity to think. Thus, the reason it is morally wrong for me to kill a human and not a dog is that the human has the ability to think rationally, whereas the dog is reacting to stimuli but is unable to understand its surroundings or make a decision. And while the dog can adapt and learn, it is not conscious, and therefore cannot have individual rights. My question is then, why do humans have individual rights just because they have the capcity to think rationally? I can think rationally, therefore I deserve individual rights...why? I don't see the reasoning behind this step. To help with the context, I was trying to explain to my friend how individual rights for humans logically follows directly from the three axioms (existence exists, consciousness presupposes existence, A is A). Can someone explain exactly how that works?

So we have a dozen or so official candidates for president in 2008 from the Dems and the Reps. Any opinions on who (if anyone) might be worthy of support from an Objectivist?

Greetings to all. I'm relatively new to Objectivism (right now I'm about 2/3rd's of the way through Atlas Shrugged, have read a handful of Rand's essays, and am a regular at www.capmag.com). My question is: given that in general forced taxation is an infringement on property rights, how would Objectivism argue to fund the limited government it requires. I've read about a voluntary lottery possibility, but is this a realistic option for our current government, and if not, what are some alternatives? More generally, if government is necessary to protect our individual rights, how can we ensure that this entity is funded without forcing citizens to pay for it, which is an infringement? Seems like a contradiction, but then again, I'm new to this philosophy. Thanks.