Rocinante

[Edit: copied my reply from the thread referred to by Stephen Speicher.] Ahh, now this is one book I have not yet obtained. The only posthumous book of Ayn Rand that I have is the "Early Ayn Rand" (short stories/plays.) And yes this does answer my question! I had the gut feeling this had to be an "intrinsic" value but couldn't reconcile that with the other knowledge I have already about Objectivism. Thanks again for the replies!

You're not being forced to refrain from using force. No one is standing guard (literally) to prevent you from using force. The law expounds the consequences of violating it. You can of course still initiate the use of force; then you'll be faced with the consequences Laws can't prevent anything; it's law *enforcement* that can (if a cop happens to be there at the time.) If the law didn't exist, wasn't on the books, then law enforcement would be unable to act. Law and enforcement are mostly retaliatory in nature. Wrongful actions are committed, then after the fact, after the damage is already done, Justice seeks to punish or correct the wrong-doing (depending on context. Torts are different from crimes and require different remedies.)

Trust funds come to mind.. They set up investments which generate dividends, which is then usable money (leaving the initial investment capital untouched.) A lot of charities already do this. As far as how advertising would work.. You sell ad space, you make money.. Just look at all the websites with ads. They are making money for every hit on their website because of the ads. So maybe charities should start their own porno sites, they make lots of money, believe me

I think privately managed and privately funded charities would do a MUCH better job, and at a much lower cost, than what the government is providing. Government has no business in education, so scratch that bit altogether (look at California, where the teachers are the highest paid, the state spends the highest amount, and the high school grads have the 3rd LOWEST scores in the nation!) It is government's rightful function to provide for the Defense of Rights (courts, police, military, etc.) And they are already empowered under our constitution to collect taxes for that purpose. I suggest researching a bit about countries that have already abolished the Welfare State and have done quite well! Google is your friend

Why is benevolence "irrational"?? I don't believe that "giving" when I have an abundance is irrational.. It would be irrational to give to a cause that is *detrimental* to myself; perhaps also to give to a cause for which I did not care.

Ahh, now this is one book I have not yet obtained. The only posthumous book of Ayn Rand that I have is the "Early Ayn Rand" (short stories/plays.) And yes this does answer my question! I had the gut feeling this had to be an "intrinsic" value but couldn't reconcile that with the other knowledge I have already about Objectivism. Thanks again for the replies!

It's given me much food for thought, although I haven't completely resolved this matter in my own mind just yet. Some of the arguments are a bit circular (defining a concept with itself) and a lot of the responses miss the point completely and just muddle the issue (although even a few of those had some interesting tidbits to consider.) I'm going to save this thread as it is thus far to mull over and look into some of the materials that were referenced. Maybe it would help to explain how I am approaching this. In my mind, "objective" means independent of consciousness, or existing outside of consciousness (as in, the material world/universe.) Obviously, the universe is indifferent to *us* - it doesn't care about (value) our existence, it doesn't care if our molecules are scattered to the winds. In my mind, "subjective" means, relating to the subject/perceiver. Ms. Speicher (whom I highly esteem!) defined subjective as being the primacy of consciousness (in essence). Maybe this is where my mistake is. I can assert that my life is a value, of course. Ms. Speicher stated that this is a personal value, as I understand her reply. One of the reasons I want to know whether life is an objective value (or, a value in itself, which would make it an intrinsic value, wouldn't it? [which this last I don't think is true, because I recall that there are no intrinsic values; value depends on a valuer]) is because it is the basis for individual rights (along with the necessitating factor of our means of survival, Reason, etc.) This always leads me into arguments with other people where I cannot fully explain or defend my position, because it comes back to an argument of being a subjective (and therefore arbitrary) basis, which puts it in the same category as "rights come from god" or similar indefensible ideas. People who argue that everything is subjective and/or relative frustrate me Just for the sake of clarity, I am talking about moral values, not physical (since some replies went into the differences there. ) I can assert that "life is a value in itself" and this appears self-evident to *us* (us being those who accept this idea and embrace life! People can, however, embrace life without necessarily accepting that idea) but is this idea axiomatic/objective (as Betsy stated "Objective" means in accordance with the facts of reality") ? Isn't saying that anything is a value in itself instrincism? Erf... I'm digging my hole deeper.. I have a pretty good grasp of Objectivism, but as I stated initially, this part is a conundrum for me. Maybe I'm looking too deep? Small bites...Baby steps..

You still pay taxes with that money, yes? So, technically speaking, it's YOUR money and it's getting dumped right back into the government's coffers, one way or another. You buy goods from local merchants, yes? You are contributing. If those others choose to help you, you have nothing to be guilty for. And unless you were the one forcing them to help you (by way of government imposed taxes) you have nothing to feel guilty for on that account either.. My view is, don't run yourself down because of a disability. As my wife has said to a few narrow minded (but more or less able-bodied) people who have cast disparaging remarks her way: She may be physically disabled by nature, but theirs is a mental handicap by choice! Just so you know, she has a neuro-muscular disease which leaves her almost completely physically disabled, with only a small amount of mobility in her arms and hands. Dispite that, she just graduated from college with a GPA of 3.92, inducted into the Honors Society Phi Theta Kappa and named to the National Dean's List. She obtained her AA degree as a Paralegal. Yes, she needs a lot of physical support and assistance, and yes she lives on Social Security. So what? We're not the ones to blame for this system, but we will use it to full advantage since it has eliminated other options. We didn't make these laws, but we will hold these agencies to their stated missions. Let me tell you about our 3 year fight with the Dept. of Rehab. In essence, their mission is to enable the disabled to become productive and independent by providing education and tools to form a new career. They receive grant money for this purpose. Their enabling laws state that they must provide telecommunications devices to qualified persons. My wife was evaluated and qualified for this. DoR balked when it came time to deliver. The argument dragged on and eventually proceeded to a Formal Hearing, at which DoR's counsellor stated in their Hearing Brief several lies, which we were about to expose. Amazingly, rather than have their lie exposed and ON RECORD, the director of that particular office decided to go off record and settle in our favor. DoR could have initially settled this matter by providing a $1000 laptop. After the Formal Hearing, they had to deliver a $6000 toughbook with Dragon Legal Suite (which costs $1000 by itself..) All because DoR wanted to quibble about a laptop versus a desktop computer (which cost very similarly, but the laptop would have been a better accomodation for my wife's situation and needs.) The moral of the story: Push past the platitudes, persist, demand the rights these laws enable you to claim, and if they are not going to fulfill their mission, threaten to expose them as failures which should not be receiving grant monies! Very few people would have persisted in this type of case, which is the whole point of these bureacracies. They make glowing claims about how much they benefit people to justify receiving grant money, but in reality benefits for any individual are made a giant hurdle to obtain! You know where that grant money is going (into their agent's and subcontractors pockets!) As far as my opinion of people with mental disabilities? It depends on the individual

Several of the replies to my question have been very informative, and much appreciated! Thanks all for shedding a little light on this subj- err topic!

As others have pointed out, this depends on context. Clear-cutting, strip-mining and fur hunting were once considered valuable here in the US. Things changed, the "good thing" became too much, and so now considered a "bad thing." Has nothing to do with multi-culturalism (although I wouldn't disparage a culture simply for being different, but that's beside the point.)

I have a question which I've not found a satisfactory answer to, after many many years of reading Ayn Rand's work, and other writers on Objectivism.. If value depends on a valuer, does that not make all values subjective? I see this as being a crucial question, a lynch-pin on which the entire structure of Objectivism rests. If all values are subjective, the structure falls apart. If we accept the basic tenant that life is a value in itself, and accept that *that* is not a subjective principle in and of itself, then the structure remains solid. But this one key question just keeps coming back and nagging me as being the weakest part in Objectivism. I've heard the argument that objective values are those "which further/foster life" [paraphrasing here, I don't have any book in front of me at the moment] but even that is open to a lot of subjective interpretation.. What fosters life for some cultures can be/is detrimental to others.. Is "our" way of life superior to everyone elses (I'm not even necessarily talking about what we Westerners call crime here; yes I concede that murder/theft/fraud is a bad/wrong thing, but that's not the heart of my question. I don't want to quibble about the details, I'm talking about a very broad concept; I realize that "that which furthers/fosters life" encompasses all the peaceful actions one may take to attain that goal. My question centers only on the key concept of whether our valuation of life is, or even can be, trully objective, or is it subjective (if all value depend on a valuer, doesn't that by its very definition make it subjective?) I'll stop being redundant now and hope that my question is understood!)) This is a conundrum for me. I look forward to any replies which might help clarify this issue (hopefully concise answers!