[A Study On Racism In The Job Force In America.]

Regardless of what an individual professor may be doing, the underlying premises of multiculturalism are racist, because they elevate race and culture to preeminence over the individual. This is racism and opens the door for less tactful and more overt racists than your professor. It's like a moderate muslim versus an extremist, the moderate may be better, but if the ideas he holds were acted upon purely you’d end up with an extremist muslim.

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.

The principle was set out and placed in writing in the Declaration of Independence, (DOI). This is what I mean. Lincoln quoted the DOI at Gettysburg. The Brits did free slaves first, but the principles weren't in their legal documents like they were in America. The principle pushed the issue of freedom over the long haul, right up to Martin Luther King.

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.

[Rand's dismissal of the hypothetical from The Mike Wallace Intervi]

I'm saying in an emergency the government may violate some rights for a limited time adn a specific purpose, to prevent a greater violation by someone else, as long as there's due process and just compensation. In extreme cases, when the urgency is too great, I'd forego due process because there's no time for it.

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

[A Study On Racism In The Job Force In America.]

Frankly, multiculturalists today are fanning the flames of racism, they're pushing it. This means that intellectuals in universities and high schools are pushing it. We’re not fighting ignorance here, we’re fighting “intellectuals” who are proactively in course after course, day after day, pushing racist dogma. It doesn't help the cause when you have that sort of thing going on in institutions of learning from K12 through university. Not to mention the way the media regularly pounds the issue down our throats. I'm not sure which is being pushed more today, environmentalism or multiculturalism.

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.

The thing that made America unique was not slavery, the thing that set America apart was the ending of slavery on principle for the first time in human history. If you don't have this idea and you can't defend it, then I'm afraid you will not be able to properly fight slavery, as history shows.

In fact, it also requires a rational, objective epistemological foundation to defend freedom. Mysticism won’t get you there

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.

[Rand's dismissal of the hypothetical from The Mike Wallace Intervi]

Well, all altruistic/colelctivist philosophies break down under every circumstance. So yes.

No one can possibly anticipate every contingency, every problem, every development and every possible outcome of every situation. Neither can any philosopher.

The matter of absurd hypotheticals boils down to: "See? Your principles don't apply to every situation, therefore they are not valid because the truth is unknowable and reason is limited." That's ridiculous. Therefore the way to deal with such hypotheticals is to dismiss them. A whole raft of popular ones start with "If you were in a life boat..." Well, so what? We're talking about a philosophy to deal with everyday life to its full extent. Most people, no doubt you've noticed, don't spend the majority of their time living in lifeboats, or dealing with an irrational property owner who's essential to millions of people.

As to exceptions, how far would medicine advance if instead of studying all people, doctors only studied left-handed dwarves? Well, for one thign you, and just about everyone else you know, would be too tall and neeed to be cut down to size.

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.

[Rand's dismissal of the hypothetical from The Mike Wallace Intervi]

Yup, it's absurd. Not only would it be impossible for us to separate U-235 from U-238 even if we had the uranium because we'd be nuclear morons, and for that matter there would be no nuclear weapons because the Elbonians, who have all of the world's uranium, just don't have the technology to smelt metal, much less make A-bombs, but it now also requires us to buy into an insane set of assumptions where the entire world is populated by vampires and werewolves just waiting to pounce.... what are they waiting for?? How did this "America" come into existence in a universe that is completely, totally and utterly irrational and yet somehow timid enough that they didn't destroy us decades ago with dynamite? Anyhow, in the scenario that you invented, we're dead already, so there's no point in invading his farm to confiscate his uranium farm.

Also note that there are many types of explosive device that do not require uranium. There is no physical or statutory law that requires us to respond to a nuclear threat with only nuclear weapons.

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.

[Rand's dismissal of the hypothetical from The Mike Wallace Intervi]

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.