coirecfox

My mother just uttered the most revealing words about the thoughts(or lack thereof) of Americans nowadays I was telling her that the purpose of the Constitution was to limit government, not individuals, and that Amendments like the 18th and that new homosexual marriage amendment from George Bush were not in the true spirit of freedom. Her response: "Well maybe the Constitution doesn't apply in today's day and age! I mean, everything is so complex."

It puzzles me how people can be so rational in some areas of life, in this case aesthetics, and completely evade being rational when they consider ethics and how it ties into reality.

What do they mean by those? Did Rand herself ever write about Montessori schooling?

Has anyone heard of Eric Whitacre. His music is amazing, but I think he is a mystic. It puzzles me. His website: www.ericwhitacre.com He has some clips of his songs avalible for free on the website. I recommend Equus, Leonardo Dreams Of His Flying Machine, Lux Aurumque, and October.

Just a quick question: How long has Montessori education been around? Is there anywhere I can find out the principles of the teaching philosophy? I actually went through a Montessori school when I was younger, however, I don't remember much of it. I do vaguely remember the pink tower though! I want to compare my Montessori education and subsequent adoption of Objectivism with the education that some of my friends and relatives have received and their adoption of mysticism.

I simply mean that by voting for a candidate KNOWING that his philosophy concerning government is diametrically opposed to mine, i.e. he wants it to get bigger and have more control over my life, what protests can I make when he enacts his philosophy? If Bush gets elected, he will continue to "mysticize" the government. If Kerry gets elected he'll screw with the economy more(like I said before they'll both do both of these things only in different ways, just that they'll do what is stated more than anything else). So if I vote for one of them, how can I say "You shouldn't be doing that." when I could have said it with my vote, i.e. not giving it to either of them? DrJaneGalt, I hope that you would vote according to the candidate, not the party, because I have met many Libertarians who are anarchists, and that is not the direction I would want my government to take. I didn't used to know why Objectivists hated Libertarians either, but the more I find out about the party and their lack of a consistent(and non-stolen) political philosophy, the more I understand why.

Today I was thinking for whom I was going to vote and why, and I came to the conclusion that either choice is a terrible choice. Either way I choose, I am still giving my consent for whomever I vote to encroach upon my life. The only difference is the method of their encroachment. The Republicans use morality and the Democrats use the economy (in actuality, both parties use both methods, they just use the stated ones a greater amount of the time). My question is: Isn't this the sanction of the victim? When we vote for a particular candidate, aren't we giving our consent for whatever they are going to try to get done? In a truly free society, where the government FOLLOWS the limits that have been placed on them, I would say no, but in today's government the possibilities of what power the government will assume next are endless. Neither candidate is looking to reduce the size and scope of the government. Does my voting tell them I agree with what they are doing?

At AIM I am: PrdueObjectivist Drop me a line anytime(esp O'ist females...I have yet to meet one in person)

"The most moral act is creating entrepreneurial jobs for others." -David L. Hunter http://www.localgroup.net/cr/moral.html

Yea...I need to find an Objectivist dating site...if there are none i need to start one.

"The reason we despise libertarians is because we know, both from philosophic proof and from experience, that they will not hold to their principles and they WILL betray, undermine, and destroy capialism." Since I am only 18, I have never seen this happen before. btw, how do you quote?

Around the time of FDR and the New Deal I believe. But the federal government does not make claims on the eminent domain principle--local, city and state governments do.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! I have a quote from George Washington: "The United States, is in no way, founded on the Christian religion."

NO!!!! It was the state's property first. The way things worked out with England, each state received individual charters: no land was given to an entity called The United States of America. The states agreed to enter a CONTRACT called the Constitution. Some states thought that the federal government's end of the deal was not being properly carried out, so they decided to get out of the contract. The federal government forced them to remain in the contract.

What I'm asking though is how one would advocate laissez-faire capitalism with a philosophical foundation WITHOUT having to go through morality first, as we have discussed that the government has no right to dictate morality. All of Rand's claims concerning the function of government are based in Objectivist ethics, most centrally individual rights. So where is the line drawn between ethics and politics? How can you say that we should have a MORAL government if the government has no right to dictate morality? The way I see the Libertarians is that they just take basic Objectivist politics and say "This is the way its going to be," and as long as people agree to it the Libertarians dont care what else people do or believe. I dont care how others justify the claim to individual rights as long as they accept it. Is that wrong?

Prae, I think the beginning of the Civil War was a little more complicated than that. Especially because at that time, most people aknowledged the right of seccesion.

So why do Objectivists despise the Libertarian Party?

So, are you saying that a proper government has no right to dictate the morality of its citizens or anyone else for that matter?

What do Objectivists think about the legalization of "consentual crimes?" Ex. prostitution, drug use, sodomy, polygamy...etc

What do Objectivists think about the idea that the states actually have a right to secede from the union?

"The Myth of the Robber Barons" disscusses the classic examples of monopoloies like John Rockefeller and James J. Hill. Its written by Burton Folsom. It is a great disscussion of the difference between coercive and market monopolies and the fact that people never cared about the difference.

The way I understand allodial title right now is that, if I have the title, I don't own land, I merely possess it. A title is what gives you the right to develop the land: it does not give you ownership of the land. Whereas if I had an allodial title to it, I would own it free and clear. I think this is how the Government gets away with the principle(ha) of Imminent Domain, where they claim that taking "your" property is in the name of the public welfare. I quote your because if allodial title is what i think it is, its not really yours, you're just using it--you merely possess the land. Does this sound familiar to anyone. And Burgess, your skill with a dictionary is unmatched, but I was looking for in depth information, like examples and legal justifications.

Has anyone here ever heard of allodial title? I was listening to Michael Badnarik's Consitution class and her started talking about it. I have never heard of it before. Some detailed information would be very helpful.

Stephen, I thought it would be a good idea to point out that above, when I said that emotions come before reason, while representing that I thought this was true in man's cognitive development, I meant that emotions come before reason in the evolutionary process. I should still clarify that you are most certainly right when you say that you have always had a problem saying animals emote. I thought about that point a lot, and I think it would have been better for me to say that animals don't emote, they use instincts, and that emotions should only be referred to when talking about the feelings of humans. Also, I went back and looked up "emotion" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon by Binswanger, and there was an entry in which Rand talks about emotions being responses to facts of reality.

Stephen, I apologize for misrepresenting the Objectivist view of emotions. I'm attempting to learn the philosophy alone with no prior education in philosophy, and to the extent of my knowledge that was a correct interpretation. What I meant when I said emotions come before reason was that emotions come before the power of the mind which separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. What exactly is your definition of reason. I don't understand, however, why you say that emotions are the product of reason. Do animals possess the capacity to reason? Did I not say that emotions are a product of the cognitive faculty? I agree that MAN's emotions are a direct result of his rational faculty, but usually animals respond immediately to the effect of an emotion, they don't take the time to analyze what they feel and why they feel it. Isn't this the rational faculty you're talking about--the ability to identify and classify the cause of an emotion? I think I should have said that the root of emotions lies in entities and a response to them with regard to the self. Isn't logical to say that one cannot respond to an entity one has not perceived? So before one can analyze a response, there must be something to which to respond. That's all I meant by that. "rather the root of emotions lies in the cognitive judgments we make" It think that's more what I was aiming to say, and that animals do this on a much more basic level--the perceptual level, right? Again, I apologize if I have misrepresented Objectivism in any way. That's why I tell people I'm a student of Objectivism, not an Objectivist.