Publius

I think you misunderstand the definition of racism or how it is used colloquially. It is true that they do put race and culture over the individual, but this isn't racist in my view, just incorrect. Multiculturalism doesn't hold that any given race is superior, just that an individual belongs to a particular group as part of their identity and one should have pride in that identity. All races and cultures are encouraged to fellowship together. This is where I think the idea breaks down, because the melting pot is the more ideal social construct to uphold, given the natural strife that occurs when we pigeon hole ourselves into enclaves. You sound like you have some experience with multiculturalism first hand, however, which would be interesting to hear about. Well yes and no. The principles of freedom in the DOI were noble and just, but that didn't stop us from selectively applying them. For a great deal of time only men with property could vote, women (half the population) could not vote for another 150 years, and had limited rights (could not own property in marriage) compared to men. The founding document, the Constitution, explicitly said a black man was 3/5 of a man. This is always a black mark on our claim to virtue and a "principle" we would rather choose to forget about. So the principles were there in fragmented pieces, only coming to true fruition in increments over a long time. I'd be curious to see if were true that some 18th or 19th century government documents from England or France did not delineate in some way the principles of freedom that repudiated slavery in some way.

I think this is the answer we were looking for all along. Thanks

I remember having some fierce ideological battles with my multicultural studies professor (it was a required class at my university). I never came around to his way of thinking, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he was pushing racism. I think he saw individuals and by extension society, being strengthened by the sense of community one had in their particular ethnic group, and that the melting pot was a false promise. I didn't, and don't, agree with this, but I don't think it is racist in nature. Have you ever taken a multicultural class of any sort? Maybe it was different for you. Not sure about all of this. Seems we couldn't act "on principle" until it served a useful purpose during wartime, namely encouraging slaves to escape to the north and deprive the south of much needed labor. The British beat us to it anyway. Even if there were some major economic reasons for ending slavery, there was a strong Abolitionist movement in Britain that contributed to its end. And the whole idea behind the Abolitionist movement was Christian in principle, not some Locke-inspired idea of the rights of man.

Maybe he's a peacenik who hates the idea of nuclear weapons. Maybe he's getting a better deal selling it to other countries or on the black market. I don't think you need to brush him off as necessarily irrational. Your analogy with the dwarves, although humorous, is irrelevant. It is useful to explore the outer limits of any idea, including Objectivism.

Maybe you'd care to comment on my variation on it. I also don't feel any country would be comfortable defending itself against a hostile nation with nuclear capability with only the technology to build conventional explosives.

The uranium scenario doesn't seem all that far fetched if you apply it to a smaller country. Say Objectivistopia is created in South America, on the border of a hostile nation with new nuclear capability. If there is only one uranium source in Objectivistopia, and it is privately owned by man who is unwilling to accept money for his uranium, and buying it in sufficient quantities on the open market is exceedingly difficult, then initiation of force seems the only viable option to the government if it is to retain some kind of nuclear deterrent. And it better do it post haste as its going to take some time to enrich the uranium to weapons grade levels. I agree with Gary Brenner that this does seem to be a scenario where one must concede that Objectivist principles break down. I understand D'kian's point that principles can't be derived from exceptions, but my question is: are there other philosophies that break down under certain circumstances? And, such as the need to contain a deadly virus, aren't there other circumstances where the "greater good" can outweigh an individual's rights? Or do we accept KevinDW78's premise that "Let us all be blown to hell before I give my consent to the government taking private property from someone"? That question is hanging in the air on this thread, without being explicitly addressed.