Tom Rexton

Yeah, but he doesn't apply. We're talking about trying criminals in a court of law. UBL is a self-confessed and proud terrorist mastermind: there will be no court of law for him.

Actually, if I wrote about a different topic that is just as appropriate and relevant, it would not be a compromise at all. After all, the question asks NOT for the MOST important, but for some historical or fictional figure, creative (art) work or scientific achievement that is important to me. Writing about someone or something else that could just as equally show my values and character for the purpose of gaining a college admissions is no compromise. A college degree is of great value to me; should I abandon it for the sake of writing a mere 500-word college admissions essay about Ayn Rand? Anyways, my original question was whether writing an essay about Ayn Rand could radically reduce my chances of being accepted into a college or university.

One of the questions on my college application is the following: "Describe a fictional or historical figure, or a creative work, or a scientific achievement. Why is it important to you?" I really would like to write about Ayn Rand or one of her works, but I am aware of the (mostly) hostile attitude towards her in colleges and universities. Would it be wise to write an essay about Ayn Rand or her works? Could or would a college deny me admission because of it?

That is a straw-man. No one here has argued that any good policy or politician that reduces or totally eliminates rights-violations should not be supported because their basis is not Objectivism. The topic of the thread is why Objectivists, Ayn Rand in particular, condemn Libertarianism and its adherents. Libetarianism is a political philosophy based on moral subjectivism. As such it is subject to moral condemnation just as Kantianism, Marxism, et al.

After giving it some more thought, I believe I now know what he meant. He is arguing that, In order for us to have meaningful communication, the concepts in our minds must be identical--i.e., have the same referents. Therefore, reality is subjective. That's totally non sequitur. In order to have a full grasp of a concept, one must have formed it properly--i.e., objectively. Otherwise, it's just a vague, floating abstraction, and we could not have meaningful communication if our concepts were vague, floating abstractions. If we were to form a concept subjectively, by using inessentials as the distinguishing characteristics and classifying a certain group of concretes accordingly, and then "communicate" with that invalid concept, such a communication would be totally meaningless. Even if we "agreed" on the identity of some entity, that agreement is not subjective if the process by which we established the identity of the said entity was objective (i.e., by logical reasoning based on the full context). As example, take the concept "chair". Your father is basically saying that because we "agree" on the meaning of '"chair" and can communicate meaningfully about chairs, reality is subjective. From this you can see how absurd his argument is. That we can communicate meaningfully about chairs is in fact due to the objectivity of the concept. That concepts can be objective is a result of the fact that reality itself is objective.

You should have asked him what he meant by "subjective"--because I certainly don't understand what he meant by that term in the way he used it. In Objectivism, the terms "intrinsic", "subjective" and "objective" have unique meanings--denoting certain theories on the source of knowledge as well as consciousness and its relation to existence.

Invalid analogy. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, and according to Objectivism, politics is but one branch of a whole philsophy, which consist of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics. Furthermore, a philosophy, in order to be valid, must be an integrated, coherent system of principles and theories, not a hodgepodge of ideas taken from anywhere and anyone, completely detached from its rich context and from its basis in theory and in reality, with one brach completely separate or outright ignored or even non-existent. With Libertarianism having no metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical basis, it is a floating, disintegrated system, with no real understanding or powerful defense of liberty. With Libertarianism having no rational ethical basis for its political theories, it is indefensible on a moral basis, and hence ultimately defenseless. And most importantly, Libertarianism can do most to discredit capitalism by falsely presenting it to the public as a morally indefensible and non-reality based social system. If you've ever read the op-eds in the Ayn Rand Institute (aynrand.org) and capmag.com about the War on Terror, as well as read the topics in the subforum "Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism", then you'd know that your assumption that "the prevailing view is an uncritical support for any and every action taken by this administration in the name of fighting terrorism" is wholly unfounded.

Not that I'm surprised--only that they actually announced it in public. Furthermore, North Korea declares that they're not open to negotiations to abandon their nuclear program. Here's the article. What should be the proper response by the US gov? Now that North Korea's got it, and the USA and EU are doing nothing to stop Iran's nuclear program, it won't be long before NK and Iran are both armed with nukes.

It is applicable--to a given context. One certainly would not bring up Objectivist morality when one is asking "should I get a hot chocolate, or the vanilla latte?" Morality cannot apply to ALL situations. It is what Ayn Rand called "contextually absolute"; i.e., moral principles are absolute within a certain context (i.e., situation or scenario). War is a wholly different situation--with a wholly different set of principles that apply. And I must admit I don't have a very clear understanding of this subject at the moment. There have been many discussions about what properly applies in war. Read over the threads concerning what is the proper strategy in this forum, particularly the thread entitled "A challange to Yaron Brook".

Of course. Animals cannot reason. They can only be deal with by force. There is no "initiation of force" between animals and human beings because, in this context, "force" means "to act upon the body or property of an individual, with intent and through physical agency, without his consent". An animal is not an individual human being. An animal cannot know whether the inidividual has given consent or not. That's why you wouldn't put a dog on trial or take him to court if he attacked you. Rights, force, law and other such concepts within the context of Objectivist political theory concerns only men, their relationship to each other, and their property. This is a very common objection we've heard many times before--so often it's given a name: lifeboat scenario. I highly recommend you read this topic, which was previously recommended by tommyedison.

Having read some of your subsequent posts, I am sure you will get a better understanding of "selfishness" (compared to hedonism, et al) when you've finished reading The Fountainhead. To answer your question, no. The basic vice in Objectivism is evasion--an act that Ayn Rand called "the root of all evil".

Wow! And I sometimes hear that Ayn Rand misrepresented Kant. Here are some quotes from the article that summarizes Kant's principal ideas, just like Ayn Rand had written: There they are--the denial of the mind's efficacy because it has identity and the primacy of consciousness all in one sentence. I never thought it could be this blatant from a Kantian. [bold mine] Horrifying.

Actually, if you read William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (particularly Chapter 25 "The Turn of the United States" pp. 871), you'll see several primary documentary evidence (taken from correspondence between Hitler and his officers) that Hitler did intend to eventually go to war with the United States--but only after all of Europe and Russia had been conquered.

The problem in common language is that often "democracy" is a "package-deal" concept, including such things as free elections of public officials while also including such pernicious concepts as absolute majority rule. Unfortunately it is the latter concept (absolute majority rule) that is most often associated with "democracy". Not that it's wrong--that is in fact the original meaning of the term.

Blank slate, I believe, means the mind does not have innate concepts. Urges, reflexes, any other involuntary muscle movements, primitive emotions (fear, hunger, pain, etc...) are not concepts. That a baby can breathe, grasp, eat, crawl, cry and even walk before ever pronouncing the first word (i.e., concept) it learns is no disproof of tabula rasa. I think the whole problem lies around your defintion of "knowledge"--which seems to imply that a lion certain "knows" how to hunt, a fish "knows" how to swim, and an eagle "knows" how to fly.

I have already mentioned that establishing a free society under the federal government is impossible unless we openly rebel against it. The statist elements of our government--federal taxes, federal regulations, and federal laws--CANNOT be rescinded by any state act. And I for one do not intend on fighting a war for independence from the US government. I just don't see how that could be in my interest at all.

I'm not impugning your intelligence. I'm merely pointing out the fact that deconstructing the current government and replacing it with a new one--a capitalist one--is no simple task by any measure, and it certainly cannot be established by a mere group of Objectivists who barely know anything about law other than what they learned in a few political essays. This is why I said the firm leadership of an experienced and intelligent body of statesmen is necessary. I highly doubt that a capitalist republic can be established without them at all. But let me ask you, who and where are they? Because if they don't exist, then let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's just going to take a simple constitution and few laws here and there in some small state. Jurisprudence is difficult and complex--Ayn Rand herself acknowledged this. And I don't believe that even she herself could have devised a wholely new government unless she actually entered the field of law. I reiterate that it would take a large group of talented Objectivist statesmen of great leadership to carry out the plan of creating Atlantis, and that as far as I know, they currently do not exist. This is why I think Objectivists are better off educating and trying to penetrate the academic establishment, for in doing so they may create such a body of intelligence and leadership that could one day make Atlantis a reality. [edited, grammar correction]

First off, that was no personal attack. Forgive me for being so unaware of the fact there are currently living among us the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and the Adams who could do the monumental task of nation-building for us Objectivists in the state of New Hampshire. Nation-building takes more than just a high IQ. That should go without saying. The Founding Fathers were highly educated in Anglo-saxon jurisprudence and in political theory and history; and they were very experienced statesmen: they were delegates to the continental Congress, representatives to their respective state legislatures, prominent lawyers and judges, and officers of the continental army during the Revolutionary War many years before they even got together in Philadelphia and then in the subsequent years establish the new government. I'm sorry if I overlooked the numerous promiment Objectivist politicians, lawyers, judges and political professors. I certainly was never aware that such talented and experienced statesmen existed among us.

Leadership is lacking--not to mention expertise and intelligence. Creating a new government, particularly a laissez-faire government, in the midst of the US federal government will be no easy task at all, even with a group of political talent like the Founding Fathers. One of the advantages they had, in addtion to being talented and intelligent statesmen, was that they were geographically isolated from the powers of Europe by the immense Atlantic Ocean. Setting up as free a state as can possibly be made without being sovereign (i.e., outright independent of the US government), its residents will still have to contend with the Federal income tax, the federal ownership and regulation of roads and some lands. Businesses will still have to contend with the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations, anti-trust regulations, healthcare regulations, etc., not to mention the punitive profit taxes, capital-gains taxes, payroll taxes, and a host of other hidden taxes. There is no way to be free from such things unless the state is truly an independent republic--and if you think that you can win independence by force from the Federal Government, then you ARE fatansizing. The question of peaceful secession was brutally settled over a hundred years ago in the Civil War, and the government has since then become more vastly powerful and omnipresent.

I have not lived here (in the USA) long enough nor have been aware of the state of the culture for a long time as some people here have such that I can easily determine what change in the general culture has happened, whether for better or worse. But whenever I try to do so, I always get mixed conclusions: in one way (politics especially), the country still seems headed towards fascism; on the other hand, there have been several encouraging and hopeful developments in academia (even in the humanities/social sciences!) that seems to indicate that the country is at a turning point for the better. I'm not certain if my evaluation is correct (my knowledge/cognitive context is too limited for me to make a certain conclusion), but judging by some of the remarks of Betsy and the like, it seems to be true. The cultural nadir may have been in the late 1960's to the 1970's. Of course, politics is always the last result in a philosophical movement. It took over a century of Enlightenment before its ideals became widespread in America and before the USA was created by the Founding Fathers. Likewise, socialism/communism took all of the nineteenth century to take root and grow before finally emerging triumphant in the Russian Revolution in early 1900's. So even if the positive turning point has come (and very recently), it might take until the end of the 21st century before we see any political-economic reforms towards laissez-faire capitalism! (barring any unforeseen catastrophe that would prompt immediate and fundamental reforms)

That's common to nearly all topics. They almost always have a disproportinate amount of views to replies.

Perhaps you mean to say that "it was moral to hold a government job as long as it was NOT one which could be properly preformed by a private company in a free society (for example, the post office)"? Some of the other ABC agencies you cite as examples can and SHOULD in fact be properly private agencies (without the power to enforce their rules, of course). Many industries do have standards and regulations privately adopted. I imagine that purely private food and drug industries would do so as well. There may arise certain private institutes and associations that would check and test consumer products and provide recommendations, reviews and guides for consumers.

Not possible. The young are relatively unskilled and inexperienced, not to mention have hardly had the high-paying career and time to accumulate wealth. People near the end of their retirement usually have amassed hundreds of thousands of dollars, whereas a teenager makes just above minimum wage and has no savings. There are millions of different occupations all requiring different levels of knowledge, experience and interest, the supply and demand for which vary greatly at any given time. Brain surgeons and grocery baggers will never in a free market have a difference in income no greater than $1,000 (in today's prices). Humans also differ greatly in the number of hours they are willing and able to work. Capitalists who own and manage businesses will of neccesity need a great deal of capital (i.e., wealth) to produce whereas the wage-earner needs none at all, except whatever portion of his income he saves and invests. Even among capitalists, the amount of wealth owned varies greatly depending upon the capital-intensiveness of their business. Car manufacturers need to own billions in capital, whereas a restaurant owner needs only tens of thousands of dollars. As you can see, the requirements and nature of human life demand great inequality.

Could you explain what you mean by that last sentence?

Hi and welcome to the forum AND Objectivism! The Fountainhead is my favorite of Ayn Rand's novels--and if you're enjoying it as much as I did, well...just continue reading and come back when you've finished! You'll see what I mean. BTW, my real name is Jeff, too! But I go by the pseudonym "Tom Rexton" in this forum. I wanted a name that Ayn Rand might have given one of her heroes. She used hard-sounding consonants R, T, G, D, K, among others, so I applied the (infered) rule and made the name "Tom Rexton".