DPW

I love them all, but my favorites would be Vienna, Only The Good Die Young, and Movin' Out.

Yes! Billy Joel is certainly one of my top favorite artists as well (although his best album, without a doubt, was The Stranger ).

I believe that's Nozick's argument, but it kind of misses the point even if it's valid (which I'm not sure it is). The problem with anarchy isn't that it wouldn't last...but what would happen if it did.

But it doesn't allow people to act freely. That's precisely the point. People can only act freely when their rights are protected, and their rights are only protected when they live under a social system based on the protection of their rights. The only social system that can lead to the protection of rights is one that has as its moral and epistemological foundations the very principles that underlie individual rights: rational egoism and objectivity. As I indicated in my post, that system is capitalism, not anarchy. This is not a question anyone familiar with Rand should ask. That a social system is based on moral principles does not mean that the only actions individuals can engage in are moral actions. It means, instead, that the only actions proscribed by the government are those that make it impossible for others to act morally, i.e., coercive actions.

No, she is saying: -One's desires are the product of one's values. One should therefore take great care to choose one's values rationally And... -One does not act on the basis of one's desires, but of one's reason (which must, of course, account for one's desires).

Bindinatto (I might have butchered his name as well, only less so) is not an Objectivist (he is a Kelleyite), which is why it isn't surprising he did not make the principled case against anarchism. Try this: every social system is based, implicitly or explicitly, on a theory of ethics. Which theory is implicit in anarchism? Here's a clue to your answer...quoting Rand: Do those consequences sound familiar? They should...they are the same consequences Rand claims anarchism would have. Anarchy (in all its forms) is based, implicitly or explicitly, on moral and epistemological subjectivism, of which hedonism (described above) is merely a variant. Just as the complexity of man's survival needs necessitates moral principles, so a social system cannot be evaluated apart from moral principles. A social system based on subjectivism cannot lead to peace and justice any more than a social system based on altruism can. That is the principled case against anarchism. Any economic arguments to the contrary are merely exercises in context-dropping. Don Watkins

Because, according to Objectivism, to know the good is to do the good so long as one remains in focus. You have the ability to ignore and evade your knowledge. That is your power of will. That which is outside the provence of choice is outside the realm of morality. The moral is the chosen. But the Christians take this position for a very good reason. If their moral code is good, then what could explain people choosing to do otherwise? It must be their will that is evil. They blame man rather than their moral code. The blame is misplaced. It is the ethics of altruism that should be condemned, not man. The problem is not that man is evil, but that altruism is unpracticable -- it is set against the requirements of human life. That, and not man's "innate depravity," is why men do not practice the Christian ethics. Don Watkins

I can't speak for Mr. Delaney, but I believe you are misinterpreting his post. I believe he was distinguishing between Objectivists, who use morality as a guide to achieving their values and securing their lives and happiness, and "religious-minded Objectivists" who view the Objectivist ethics as a set of commandments or dogma to be followed for the purposeof being "a good Objectivist." Don Watkins

These points have already been answered for you, by me and by other posters (not to mention Ayn Rand). For instance, that first set of questions was addressed at length in my posts to which you have already been referred twice. The second point I answered in my last response to you: your opponent is saying that you can't argue, "Murder is immoral because it is irrational," if your reason for claiming it is irrational is that it is immoral. That's true, but as I pointed out, the reason murder is immoral is because it is opposed to the principles of human survival. To claim that murder is in one's self-interest is to claim that it is in one's interest to sacrifice others to oneself. It is to claim that sacrifice is a proper principle of human survival. So my question for you is this: does human life require sacrifice? If you don't know the answer to that question after having read Rand's work, there's not much else to say. One addtional comment. You begin your post by saying, "Could somone explain how I should counter this?" Objectivism is not a tool for secondhanders more concerned with winning debate points than understanding reality. Your first concern must always be, what is the truth? Next time you have a confusion, say so. Don Watkins

If only that were so. (Sure, a "religious-minded" Objectivist isn't really an Objectivist, but enough of those people call themselves Objectivists. And many of them post regularly on this forum. And many of them drive the quality posters away through their self-righteous posturing. It is presumably to such people that Mr. Delaney was referring.) Don Watkins

INTJ. For an interesting article on personality tests that specifically discusses the origins of the Myers-Briggs test, check this out.

You should have taken the advice of a previous poster and looked up my posts in a thread where I discussed the basis for concluding that violating the rights of others is not in one's self-interest. To address the above, yes, Objectivism does state that rationality is the ultimate criterion for choosing moral principles (it is the basic moral principle). Reason, after all, is the criterion for choosing anything. It is reason that tells us that if we choose to embrace life as a goal, we must embrace rationality as the means of achieving that goal. So what does rationality imply about murder? The same thing it implies for any form of sacrifice: human life doesn't require sacrifice but the exact opposite. It requires the creation, defense, and achievement of values.

No, you didn't, since those things are and can only be a consequence of reason. Don Watkins

We aren't seeking to counter liberalism: Objectivists seek to counter irrationalism, altruism, and collectivism, ideas embraced by liberals and conservatives alike. If you think that Sean Hannity is anything but pure poison, I suggest you read Ayn Rand's speech, "The Age of Mediocrity." Don Watkins

It doesn't count. Separation of state & economy means that the government may not control, regulate, or attempt to direct the economy. Obviously, in order to function, the government must participate the economy. Don Watkins

This is disasterous. A criminal has no rights. By what logic does an individual have rights if he does not recognize MY rights? There are no piecemeal rights -- you either recognize them as a principle or you don't. A criminal doesn't. As to that last line, the results of me defending my life, liberty, or property are on the hands of the criminal who put me in that situation. Any harm done to innocents, assuming it was an unfortunate consequence of my attempt to defend myself, is on HIS hands. This is twisted with confusions. I will confine myself to this: this has nothing to do with what we are talking about, which is not the use of automatic weapons to defend oneself in a public forum, but with my right to defend my property. The fact that you chose to make this non-point while ignoring the bulk of my post tells me all I need to know about your method of functioning. This conversation is over. Don Watkins

My apologies. I was thinking of another poster. Don Watkins

I don't believe that it's impossible to know in every case, but even granting that it is, I'm trying to identify the principle whereby it is wrong to defend yourself when you are not at risk for death. As for my point not following, I have not made a point. I asked a question which you are refusing to answer. I will try again: if you knew that a thug only intended to rough you up, would you have an obligation to allow him to do so? If I understand you, the answer would have to be "yes" since you claim that the standard for when it is proper to engage in self-defense is when you believe you are at risk of being killed. If that is NOT your standard, then please correct me. Yes I do. My car is MINE and just as I don't have to hand it over to someone who asks for it, so I don't have to hand it over to someone who demands it or tries to take it. Now, whether or not it is prudent for me to refuse to do so depends on the circumstances, but it is outrageous for you to claim that a man who tries to stop a theif from stealing his car lacks justification, or what's more, is acting immorally. It is not as if his alternatives are, "Keep your car, or "let the police get it back for you." More likely it is, "Keep your car or lose your car." Even if that were the case, I still don't believe you would have an argument. After all, whose rights would he be violating? Surely not the criminal's! Right, which is exactly why you SHOULDN'T let them get away with your car in the first place, if you can take reasonable action to do so. But this argument works only if you assume that my action is not one of self-defense, but that is precisely what you need to prove. I maintain that it IS an act of self-defense because self-defense refers not merely to "not dying" but to the protection of your life and your property. Certainly, if you try to keep your car and the thug gets away, you do not have the right to track him down, take it back, and invoke justice. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about you claiming that one has no right to stop him in the act. As for getting beat up by a thief...you forget, if I lived in a free country I might very well carry a gun. More broadly, whether or not a person chooses to assume the risks involved in defending his property is properly left to his judgment. My point is not that it is always, or even often, wise: only that it is his right. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I do not recognize a distinction between defending my property and defending my life. Only if you take "life" to mean "not dead" does this even begin to make sense, but of course that is NOT the Objectivist definition. Furthermore, you seem to want to imply that defending one's property violates the desire to "preserve the principles that make property and life possible, namely the principle of a civil society," but as I pointed out before, that is only so if one first concedes that protection of one's property does not come under the umbrella of "emergency self-defense." I do not concede that. Don Watkins

So you're saying that if we COULD know for certain that an attacker was just going to rough us up, we would have to let him? Everything is a difference. The issue is whether the difference in question makes a difference. It's up to you to demonstrate that this particular difference does. Your claim, it seems, is that self-defense refers only to the defense against death, not against one's body, property, or other values, and that therefore we should not resist a criminal in cases where we do not perceive our life to be in danger. That is a strikingly bizzare claim and I hope that you will provide some basis for making it. By the way, I showed my girlfriend your previous point. I think her response was insightful, especially in the way she noted that there is no dichotomy between defending your life and defending your property: Don Watkins

That's right. Retaliation (as distinct from immediate self-defense) is the application of justice to criminal matters and requires objective legal standards to ensure the protection of the rights of the innocent. Self-defense falls within the scope of emergency situations, with everything that implies. This is a bad argument. It implies that self-defense means merely the sustenance of one's life. If that were the case, one would have no legal right to defend one's loved ones if they were being attacked. Hell, it implies that one may not properly defend oneself in any case where one's life isn't threatened. After all, broken bones heal, do they not? Don Watkins

Very simply: because it is irrational to violate the principles of justice and honesty, as they are in fact applications of the virtue of rationality. Now, you didn't answer the question I posed to you: according to what moral principle is it in your interest to violate the rights of others? Don Watkins

"Cult" in this context is a smear, used in precisely the same way as another smear, "extremism" (which Rand addressed in her essay, "Extremism: or The Art of Smearing."). The intended target: anyone who advocates philosophical and political consistency. In other words, it is okay to be fore the individual, according to these people, so long as you mix in some collectivism here and there. Don Watkins

See my last reply to Hal. You are assuming what you must prove: that gaining a so-called "material benefit" at the expense of others is in your interest so long as you can get away with it. The trouble is, to prove that something is in your interest, is to demonstrate that it is an instance of a proper moral principle. I challenge you to name a moral principle that implies that violating the rights of others is in your interest. There is no rational way to do it. Don Watkins

This is completely backwards. We use moral principles to determine our self-interest. There is no other way to do it. What you may be referring to is that our moral principles are contextual, but you don't determine the context of a principle by looking for cases where it "fails." Rather, the context in which a principle applies is the context in which it was formed: a rational being acting long-range to pursue values in order to sustain his life. So you tell me: in what way does this particular scenerio fall outside of that context? The reason this is unclear to you is because you are taking it as self-evident that it is not in your interest to pay money if you can avoid doing so. Well, that's not self-evident. That's something that must be proven, and to prove that something is in your self-interest requires that you demonstrate it to be an instance of a proper moral principle. So let me ask you another question: What moral principle says that it is proper to destroy someone's property without re-emburssing them? Don Watkins

Try a more fundamental question: how do we determine what our self-interest consists of in the first place? Is it self-evident? Well, I will remind you of the Objectivist answer: the only way to determine what is in our self-interest is by reference to moral principles. Assuming you agree that, for example, justice and honesty are proper moral principles, the answer to your above stated question is obvious: the self-interest lies in the fact that B ) and C ) [let's assume] are requirements of honesty and justice. If you do not agree that justice and honesty are proper moral principles (i.e., that they are necessary means to achieving your values), that is another discussion altogether. Any time you come upon a "dilemma" such as the one you cite, ask yourself the following questions: -Must man act on principle in order to survive? -If so, to which principles must he adhere? -Finally, how do those principles apply in this particular circumstance? Don Watkins Edited to deal with the fact that my ( B ) and ( C ) turned into emoticons.