nimble

Im having a hard time coming up with refutations to determinist theories, without becoming a compatiblist....Can anyone help me and explain why causality and free will can co-exist and work?

I don't disagree with any Objectivist premises as far as I have known in my 3 years of studying Objectivism. However, to answer your question. I think Libertarians are different from Objectivist, because in our current political system I welcome all those who don't agree with me on everything. There is no way you will win an election without allowing Christians to vote for you, or other groups of similar nature. If you see where I am coming from...I do not associate Libertarianism with Objectivism because they are not one and the same. I support any reduction of unnecessary government, and I support the libertarian party because of it.

Bad logical inference. What you did there is called affirming the consequent. Peikoff may not like pornography, but I think why you are watching it plays more of a factor. Things is inherently evil, its how you use them.

I said 60% sure first of all. Meaning I am not certain. Secondly, I over heard it mentioned briefly in a post-lecture discussion at the U of M objectivist club. I never questioned it, or cared to look into it. I made it clear that I was not certain, but trusted the fellow objectivist enough to mention it here. I was under the impression that Ayn Rand was not a war hawk like modern objectivists or an isolationist, but rather a NON_INTERVENTIONALIST.

From what I know of Rand's personal opinions. She opposed WWI (positive about this one), WWII (60% sure), and the Vietnam War(positive). So I think its fair to say that Rand wasn't quite the war hawk that modern day Objectivists are.

Ive heard arguments against egoism being the only moral way to act. I forget which philosopher argued this, but he said that Rand merely labeled anything she wanted to as egoism then proceeded to call egoism moral. Like how it is okay to give to others so long as you choose to, yet that is altruism.

[Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread on taxes. - sN] Just curious:How does a govt fund itself without taxes?

I am not defending anarchy, so I dont know why you ask me to cite examples of anarchy. However, Iceland, Merchant european ports, somolia, and any scarcely inhabited area serves as an anarchy.

He is a harvard philosopher (minimal statist) who wrote anarchy, state and utopia. Brilliant man.

Well, Im not sure that anarchy necessarily equates to any type of warfare. Thats the equivalent of someone saying that government automatically equates to warfare. There has never existed a government that hasnt had some war on its grounds. I think far too many conclusions are drawn, than can be drawn.

Im sorry I dont have the lexicon yet. Thats pretty expensive. However, I do own capitalism, so I do have the nature of govt essays.

What did Ayn Rand mean by government, as opposed to what normal people mean when they say government? I guess I am caught up on how you expect a government composed of men, who are fallible, and easily corruptible. (Consider the type of person it takes to want to get into government). Why would it be any different from a private protection agency. Is there any specific text that actually shows the difference. I dont want a broad definition from a book of govt. Thank you

Yea I was wondering what the difference between a "government" and a private company? To me the distinction seems non-existent, tell me what Im missing? Also, and I do think that a govt can and SHOULD allow private protection. Such as private guards, detectives, etc.

Okay I always get caught up here. We agree that property rights make the land you work YOURS. What right does government have to organize itself on YOUR land? Second question, if men are not allowed to initiate the use of force, how would the men in government bar other competitors from services such as providing law, police, etc, without initiating the use of force? Last question, if more than one govt is made, and they compete in service providing, how are lines drawn between govts? Is it just arbitrary, or determined by war? And if govt cannot own land, because all land is private, what right does it have to attack to gain land and set its boundaries? Thank you...if you could answer these questions thoroughly I think that would just about solve my questions.

Thanks alot.....Let me think about this for a bit...and ill come back with more questions and/or arguments. Ill reread a few things.

I read Rand in the early years of high school. Ive read all her non fiction and most of her fiction. I loved it. I still do. I think they are great works. The question I have is about anarchism versus Rand's minimal state. I have read her arguments in Capitalism about rights and proper function of the state. I agree that if a state is moral, then her way would be ideal. HOWEVER, I have never seen an argument that supports the moral CREATION of a state. How is it created from the anarchism that is natural? I agree that a govt can be useful, but I cant see how forcing a person into a system they dont accept is moral. And if you allow one person to secede for personal preference, what keeps the rest from leaving and retreating back into anarchy. Basically, I would just like to hear the argument for the creation of a state. Then from there, how would the state remain in place without taxation? And why can a state force people who may not agree with their laws, punishments, etc to live by them? I really do genuinely want to understand this. I read the articles on strike the root, where some O'ist points out the contradictions in anarchism, then an anarchist replies. And it seems to me that I am somewhere in the middle, leaning more toward anarchism.

I love Postal Service. However, I dont think that a band is automatically sad if it has sad lyrics etc. I like alot of non-objectivist music. I think that the music is much more important than the lyrics. Really thats all I like about each band. Try Azure Ray, Bright Eyes, or Death Cab for Cutie (just another band by the same people in postal service), also Coheed and Cambria copies alot of Rush styles, so maybe you should try them.

What do you mean? I dont think you need a label or clique to be an O'ist.

Okay, so are you an anarcho-capitalist?

No that follows Rand's ethics perfectly. You must treat men as ends and not means. You cannot initiate the use of force.

I dont think you get it. Socialists are not violating rights if all people in their society consent to socialism. Anything that is done with the consent of all parties involved is okay. And you said they have a right to create more than one government. And to your original statement. Let's suppose Government A makes a law regarding intellectual property rights. Government B believes that intellectual property rights dont exist. (Even we debate that here). When a citizen from Country B produces something without the consent of the man who made it from the man who first found it. (lets for argument say they found the same invention independently). Can government A enforce its laws on government B? I submit that they cannot, and that rule of law is thus subjective, which is not as it should be.

Have you ever read Marx? He believes capitalism and any system of heirarchy creates class divisions which are bad for society. Im pretty sure socialists believe that capitalism creates classes. They may not want to participate. And truthfully, I could care less about their reasons. They could not want to participate because capitalism starts with a "c", but its not my place to force anything on another.

Here is an example of two governments fighting over the use of retaliatory force. There is a case in Germany that is issuing a subpoena out for Donald Rumsfeld, for war crimes. However, do you think the US government is going to submit to the law of a foreign nation? Effectively, Donald Rumsfeld becomes immune from rule of law. And I dont care what a socialists reasons are for leaving, but if he wants to not participate in the class creating capitalist country, then he and his friends may choose a different form of government. Same would apply to a christian area that wanted christian law. Same would apply to an anarchist that wanted no state. They, in theory, have the right to create the form of government they choose, so long as all under their govt or lack of govt, agree to the terms of the institution.

Are you insinuating there should be as many leashes as there are necks?

I think you draw a few conclusions that cannot be drawn. Truthfully, the only thing wrong with multiple governments is that it creates a competition for the use of retaliatory force. When there is a competition in the market for law and legislation, then that amounts to anarchy. Mutual agreement between people does not always entail capitalism. In fact, I know many people who arent capitalists. Does a government have a right to enforce a belief on someone they dont want? NO!!! So those who are not capitalists may fraction off from the capitalist government. Im not advocating socialism, but I am definitely advocating that no man man initiate the use of force to coerce a socialist into participating in a capitalist government. And if you allow one to fraction off, then you cannot logically draw a line.