[my MAJOR problem with objectivism]

one thing that has put me off objectivism is the idea that we have a purpose.... and it is to "SURVIVE".

who can truely decide what our purpose is?

maybe our purpose is to see who is the fastest to leave this hell whole.

why have you put 'survival' as the golden calf?

I am pretty sure it is Scientology that claims our purpose is to "survive".

[Should justice be retributive or restorative?]

Fortunately, civilized countries like the US have the rule of law, which prohibits such behavior.

What do you find fortunate about civilized countries prohibiting the use of lethal force against a criminal? To me it seems obvious that a person who is capable of robbing a bank has forfeit his or her rights to live among civilized people. Robbing a bank is uncivilized. Killing bank robbers advances civilized society, it does not diminish it, in my opinion.

[Should justice be retributive or restorative?]

All I care about results. The worse the crime, the less I personally care about their individuals liberty. If a guy is caught red handed robbing a bank, shoot him on site, as far as I am concerned. But, I recommend: 1. High probability of getting caught. 2. A punishment that fits the crime. That is the magic combination. Just watch the speed of traffic for a bit. First, an area that has no visible cops anywhere and low probability of a car being pulled over. Second, an area that has many cops out and a high probability of being pulled over.

["Native Americans"]

Ok I've been debating with my coworkers about the native Americans. Specifically were the white men justified in running them off their land. I've argued that to run someone off of their land those being run off would have to have a concept of property rights. Does anyone disagree? I'd like to hear rational arguments not emotional appeals which is all I get at work

I would argue that the second sentence would tend to bait someone into an emotional appeal. Fist, it uses colorful language: "run them off". Second, it acknowledges that they do, in fact, own it. When we talk about something we own, we call it ours. When we talk about something someone else owns, we say that it is theirs. The question specifically asks if it is OK for one group to run another group off a piece of land they own. So thirdly, it focuses us on groups instead of indivduals. White verses Native American. It is creating an "us against them" scenario that tends to bait folks into emotional pleas. My conclusion is that your argument is weak. If you truly desire rational arguments, you need to ask rational questions.

[Beat This!]

Captain Kirk beats any other Star Trek character