StrictlyLogical

I would say the proper objectivist society should adopt the following re. rights as between children and parents in respect of property.
 
1. Parents have no obligation to transfer ownership to the child of any real or personal property.
2. Equally children have no claim to any property of the parents.
3. A child comes to own property like any other individual in a free society, he can receive it as a gift or as a trade from someone who rightfully owns and thus can give or trade the property. 
4. Parents cannot destroy the property, give it away or otherwise divest the child from ownership of it.
5. Given a parent's responsibility (as between the child and parent) to act in the best interests of the child (a separate matter) until the child is a full adult individual, the parent can prevent the child from ACTING in a manner, in connection with the property which is not in the best interests of the child... or perhaps more rationally the best interests of the adult person the child may become.  This means the parent may need to prevent destruction, prevent imprudent sale, prevent gifting... IF the child does not know what he/she is doing and would likely regret doing it etc. i.e.  not in the best interests of child.
6. If to protect the interests of the child the parent must take possession (NOT ownership) of the property, lock it up, or otherwise take control of it, the parent will do so in a manner which protects the value of the property and the rights of the child to that property until such time as the child may regain possession, or until the child becomes a full adult individual at which time the parents shall be obligated to deliver up the property back to their child if so requested by the child.
7.  At all times, until and unless, the child has voluntarily disposed, destroyed, sold, given away etc the property (subject to the parents responsibility to intervene in the child's best interest or in the best interests of the person he/she will become) the property will properly be owned by the child.
8.  If the parents divest the child of ownership, rather than simply dispossess the child of the property, either by destruction, unwanted sale, or gift etc. the child will have, upon becoming a full adult individual the right to restitution from the parents for the unjust theft, destruction etc. of that property by the parents.  The damages shall be at least the value of the property wrongfully destroyed, divested, plus interest, and may include damages connected to the parents unjust benefit from the property (if for example they sold it and kept the money or used it themselves), and possibly damages for any pain and suffering. 
 
Oh yes,  In an objectivist society children should have the right to sue parents for damages once they reach adulthood, based of course on rational standards.
 
so my answer is, morally children HAVE property rights... the mere fact there are parents is an aside and a complicating factor with respect to the way the child can ACT in respect of that property but OWNERSHIP itself, as a right, is unaffected. 
 

Seems that "part" is meant to be a portion of the substance of something, like a protrusion, or an extension or a sub-portion.  This type of thing is quite different from a quality or attribute correct?  I would think the thing and its parts equally could have attributes and/or qualities.
 
So did we arrive at a conclusion re. what Rand meant by attribute and what she meant by quality in the quote given at the start of the thread?

IF induction IS
 
"inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances"
 
and if the totality of any individual person's life is a collection of particular instances of experiencing reality, then is not claiming "induction is wrong" tantamount to claiming "knowledge" is impossible to every individual?  Is it not an attack on the process of conceptualization itself?
 
 
I think I hear echoes of skepticism and rationalism...
 
 
Assuming omniscience, mystic revelation and platonic forms do not exist (and they do not), perhaps the issue of "knowledge" is one of semantics.  An Objectivist knows that whatever "knowledge" IS, it must at least fall within the scope of WHAT an individual can HAVE in his or her brain and can gain from experiencing reality (there are many other steps of course)
 
It would be utterly senseless to speak of a kind of "knowledge" not possible to man.. such a definition takes the concept outside of the range of what it is meant to identify.
 
SL 

Plasmatic:
 
Although originally the intent of my questions were to understand what you WERE thinking and what you HAD thought, I am sure it will be just as, if not more, illuminating to understand what you WILL think once you have had a chance to finish devouring and digesting that new book. 
 
Any new and useful information which ends up contributing to the upkeep (including any modification, strengthening, deletion, or addition) to the structure which is the integrated unity of my knowledge will be very much appreciated.  I await selfishly to hear your thoughts!! 
 
-SL

Harrison: your comments look interesting but I am focused on an exchange with Plasmatic right now.  Please forgive me if I address them later.
 
Plasmatic:
 
You stated: 
"The impossible in it is the idea that meaning can be transferred to higher level concepts while denying their source and context in perception. That induction or deduction somehow allow us to bypass the foundation of perception to ALL HUMAN knowledge"
 
This is the very misunderstanding I thought you may have had.  I will be clear:
1   induction or deduction CANNOT bypass the foundation of knowledge which at its base is perception... the only link to reality.  I am not a rationalist, and as an objectivist reject all forms of mysticism, religion, Platonism, communism, primacy of consciousness...etc.  Induction and deduction ... are my tools I use to make sense of my perceptions, conceptually in an integrated, noncontradictory fashion.
2   I do not deny that perception and our perceptual apparatus are fundamental to obtaining information from reality.  They are fundamental, in fact they are the ONLY tie a consciousness has to reality no many how many or few (blind deaf.. etc.) or how weakly that consciousness is able to get input from reality, that input IS all it has (inner self-knowledge, intuition, "remembering" platonic forms... are NOT sources of knowledge of existents.. these are introspective musings, delusions, and imaginings only).
 
 
These two things I state above ARE my philosophy.  The question arises: what have I said that could have been misconstrued to mean the exact opposite?
 
 
 
I think perhaps it may be due to my identifying (attempting?) concepts not commonly referred to, or perhaps I have referred to something known in special circles according to some specific jargon which I have not used.
 
 
What is the hypothetically flawed objectivist (and by no means do I mean every objectivist) doing which I identify as a mistake?  Certainly, relying on perceptual input is NOT a mistake.  The pencil appearing bent in a glass of water is in no way "wrong" it is the way the light refracts through the water, enters the eye and is processed by the visual cortex.  The possible problem which can arise is the prescientific instantaneous judgement that the pencil must itself be bent.  It is in this sense only that I refer to "common sense intuitions" which can be erroneous if the whole of knowledge, experiments, analysis etc, is not integrated with the process of assessing the appearance of the pencil.  As an objectivist, maximal integration is my voluntarily chosen "duty" (not the best word but you get my meaning)
 
In a sense the error I am thinking of is focusing too much on or giving too much weight to common-sense "feelings" and intuitions  humans (including unwary objectivists) have, which interferes with proper cognition.  Feelings and intuition cannot form a  basis of knowledge... this is precisely my point. 
 
E.g.  We all know from specialized knowledge of the science of physics that atoms, nuclei and their surrounding electrons, exist and form all forms of everyday solid, gaseous, and liquid matter.  I know of no objectivist who rejects the concept of atoms, but we should recognise that there is an accomplishment involved in the acceptance of this fact.  We have had to forego the application of concepts such as solidity and "continuity of entity" as applicable to our interaction with "a ball of steel" and "a rock" at our time and length scales, when dealing with electrons, nuclei and atoms.  This is not trivial.  I note we used our rationality and our perceptual faculty to imagine, construct, conduct  an experiment and analyse the results to arrive at this state of counterintuitive knowledge. 
 
Perhaps it is only my intuition, but when I imagine things, entities in reality, something which is solid and continuous tends to appear in my mind: not something mostly empty, made of pointlike (if not actual point) particles interacting in a manner which gives rise to an arrangement which is static and yet utterly discontinuous and full of space.  
[[[As an aside: when writing this, my common-sense intuition is screaming "point particle... nothing is a point.. a point has no length, no area, no volume such a thing is impossible because ... all things have volume are solid and are continuous...." I note this is circular and unsupported, then I have an infinite regression type argument with myself INVENTING spherical particles which are solid...for which there is no evidence whatsoever that they exist... soon I realise my intuition is simply not applicable and is simply not based on any data relevant to that which I am trying to apply it]]]  
This intuition (solidity and continuity) about the way the universe is, does work at the level of everyday objects we interact with and operationally makes perfect sense and in that sense is true.  I cannot pass my hand through a block of steel, and I can (on a macroscopic scale) divide it to my heart's content.  This is useful knowledge and solidity is valid.  The concept of solidity, however, is simply inapplicable to electrons and nuclei which make up all solid matter. 
 
These things give rise to solidity but they do not themselves possess it.
 
To me this is an accomplishment in abstract conceptual thinking, knowledge of atoms as they are requires rationality and careful experimentation.  This does not involve the denial of the perceptual faculty but does in some sense require close examination and vigilance with respect to "intuitive common sense" so as not to permit it to lead us astray.
 
My open question was whether certain prescientific, non specialized knowledge or experience based "common sense intuitions" may influence judgements about science in the absence of the full body of knowledge which should be integrated to make a decision about it.
 
This kind of mistake may not in fact be a phenomenon attributable to Objectivists in general... my sample is very small.
 
I hope this resolves the misunderstanding of my meaning.
 
 
SL
 
 
 

Agreed:  Although, a normally developed male (mentally, i.e. emotionally and cognitively) in his 30s will likely have different very values, experiences, knowledge, and goals from a "normally" developed female in her late teens/early 20s.
 
Unless the woman is exceptionally experienced, accomplished, and mature emotionally and cognitively etc.  OR unless the man is exceptionally UNDER developed there generally will not be the conditions for what objectivists define as a state of love ever occurring between the two or even one for the other.
 
If one were to speculate one could say that, probabilistically speaking, "real" romantic love (according to objectivism) is likely not actually being experienced by the man (irrespective of whether or not this would or even could be reciprocated by the female).

I agree with the previous two answers. Well said both of you.
 
One additional item I would like to raise is the implicit context within which Sartre's statements should likely be viewed.
 
Before Rand (and correct me if I am wrong), "Ethics" and "Morality", "Good" and "Evil" were concepts which had the status of existents, "out there" in reality, having an independent existence from Man or any man's mind, whether existing in the supernatural (religious), platonic (realm of forms), or otherwise mystical realm(consciousness of a collective).  As such these were holus bolus Mystical in nature, whether edicts, duties, imperatives, commandments, they simply WERE, and "should" be discovered and followed.  As a philosopher considering Ethics and morality, you either believed in them (and embraced them or rejected them) or disbelieved in them i.e. repudiated their existence entirely, and there was no alternative.  Either mystical moral truths EXIST (out there) or they moral truths (of any kind) do not exist AT ALL (complete subjectivism).
 
A person like Sartre (and I am guessing as to motives) speaking of "Ethics" as subjective is primarily denying the existence of mystical moral truths etc. that require mysticism, BUT going too far because he saw no alternative.  In some sense when he says you can't say what is "better" is correct, if "better" (morally speaking) is defined as having meaning only in the context of a mystical realm.  He falls back on a subjective standard for "better" - i.e. short range "what you feel like" subjective whims, because at least that IS real.
 
I think Objectivist Ethics and morality is difficult for non-Objectivists to understand because it does not really fall within what the normally mystical definitions of Ethics and Morality are based upon.  In some sense many of the problems, ruminations, conundrums of ethical and moral philosophy, which inherently are based on these mystical concepts, are simply not addressed by Objectivism which rejects mysticism (and rightly so).
 
It is ironic that Objectivism solves the "problems" of Ethics and morality by providing an alternative to the common conceptualizations of Ethics and morality.  In some sense it does not solve the previously erroneously posed problems other than by pointing out they are ill-posed questions whose premises are based on non-existents.