AndrewRyan

That's unfortunate when there are so many better targets.

Where do you draw this relationship between uncircumcised males and their bathing habits? In what case has genital sensitivity ever prevented effective washing and caused negative effects? I can assert with some certainty that washing the glans with soap and water is nothing like sandpaper.

Foreskin and the clitoris are not useless bits of extra skin. I'm not advocating rights of children, I'm advocating individual rights. Nobody has the right to mutilate or torture someone else, regardless of what society thinks or what rituals may be practised.

Please do not compare circumsicion to piercings. Piercings do not remove almost have the nerves of the ears. Boys end up with less feeling in their penis, but I guess that's not traumatising. It's only a minor issue if you feel parents have the right to mutilate their children for aesthetic reasons.

How is this subject still going on? I don't understand how anyone could argue for genital mutilation.

What possible rational reason could exist for forced mutilation on another human??

Welcome. If you don't mind, where did you study?

So you're one of those people that use force to violate other's property rights.

Fox News is a far better source than any other news channel. Plus it has more viewers than all the others combined. At least those watching are getting a daily dose of reason.

Not all of the media thinks Obamedicine is good. There are a lot of conservative commentators that speak out against this plan everyday.

How do you know other Objectivists are not busy spreading their ideals? That seems to be the point you make, and yet I can only wonder what you have done besides writing this letter.

While it's true that America was founded on individual rights, I believe that the "American way" now means something closer to a Christian welfare state, ie. God and Country slogans. If the people of the US return to those foundations of individual rights, then I will swiftly embrace the "American way."

Your style of writing suggests sarcasm/satire.

Your first statement is debatable. Communism would eventually have collapsed regardless of Reagan or Thatcher. They clearly did not save western civilization from mystics since mysticism is still a large part of modern politics. Western civilization must be in favor of capitalism...that's why we have an increase in welfare statism in the west. I am also against an indefinite preservation af the "American way of life." I hope to see the day when it is replaced by a "way of life" that respects individual rights.

Workers can make unions if they want, as individuals they have freedom of association. Employers can fire them and have the police escort them off the property, as individuals they have property rights.

Reagan, Bush Sr, and a lot of Americans are mystics. The majority of European civilization are also mystics. Culture has never given me anything, since it is an abstract concept. I would like to thank people like Ayn Rand though. Btw, I'm not a savage.

If artists consent and make the music available for downloading then yes. If not then no.

You were correct.

Education is not the job of local, state, or federal government regardless of the Constitution.

The Constitution includes a lot of parts that give government greater power than what a legitimate government has.

That would only be a start. Not only should the federal government not be involved in education, but state governments shouldn't be involved. Education is a job of individuals, not the government.

YOU'RE lucky. I couldn't get my mom to read AS unless it had a half-naked man on the front.

In my humble opinion, getting people interested in Rand's ideas is important. Once people become interested they can then seek out and learn the finer details of Objectivism. This important if society is ever going to change. However, no good comes from a sudden growth if the people don't understand the philosophy.

I have a friend who is a Libertarian. He's not an Objectivist because he believes in "God" but from what I've seen of him and other Libertarians they seem to have very similar ideas to us. As to voting for Libertarians, wouldn't it be easier to enlighten a public that embraced Libertarianism than say conservatism or socialism?

--It's evolutionarily advantagous to have the parental/child bond. Babies are born pretty much helpless. Without loving parents, babies would not survive. Most mamals share this trait of strong parent/child attachment. Other animals, sharks for example, do not have this trait as their offspring are already developed an capable of self defense. --Those terms are used to describe famial relationships. As for the roles, parents are providers of protection and nurture. Brother and sister roles are just famial terms, I don't think they really serve a function. --This and your blood relation question could be combined. Blood relation simply means you share similar genes. That in itself is not enough to establish a loving realtionship. I actually do not love most of my family as they are more like strangers. I feel no unconditional love for someone because we share similiar genetic material. --They would be strangers, and I'd have no reason to seek them out. --Children carry on a name only. You can't live forever through your children. They just carry on a name and a memory. Hope this helps.