Eiuol

I think one crucial thing is absent that prevents Objectivism being a subculture; a lack of a shared set of customs. There is no "Objectivist music", Romantic Classical has no *particularly* special value nor does it have a "cultural relevence" so to speak to Objectivism. I think Romantic Classical is good music, but I'm not a fan of most of it. When I think subculture, I think a very distinct group with an easily defined preference for particular genres of music/movies/food/activities. Objectivists are probably too individualistic to be truly part of any subculture. The "rarity" of an Objectivist wouldn't be relevant, since it normally would be rare to come across anyone of a particular subculture. I've never seen a Satanist in real life and most people probably haven't either, but they certainly are a subculture. What matters is if a cohesive group is formed and identifiable (certainly collectivist).

Of course there should be consequences to rights violations, but it does not automatically mean prisons are the best type of consequence. I do not see why prisons should not be entirely private. The government can determine what means of punishment to use out of all available private means, I would say. That could mean prisons. It could mean essentially making a convicted criminal an indentured servant to government. (I assume this was referring to private prisons?)

Because it would be knowingly dealing with and associating with a completely irrational person. I mean is Glenn Beck really the *best* platform to talk about Objectivism publicly? Especially when Glenn Beck has such a strong atheist-phobia/hatred?

"A constant history of human rights violations, false "scientific" reports, false "independent" studies, and intentionally suppressing information about the potential side effects and health hazards related to their products, thereby putting consumers at risk." Those are clearly examples of fraud. Well the last one I'm not to sure about. Some people simply don't care about risks they take in finding cheap food. So they'll buy the stuff that with a little bit of research that could easily cause disease. (Kinda cool how he threw in thimerisol aka vaccines cause autism...). Besides a company that would outright lie about the data of their products, no force is involved. I don't think the best thing to say is that the government's job should be to protect its citizens. It would be better to say that it should be to protect rights. To say protect would lead him to think of protecting people could include being their watchdog, i.e. both preventing companies from making the most dangerous products and inform consumers when there are moderate risks. That absolutely does protect people. But it isn't "protecting rights". This person is clearly a collectivist though, so arguments about role of government won't work to change his mind. And his standard of rights is human rights, which is really just "positive rights". You're talking of "negative rights", so at best you'll be talking past each other.

I thought the "primacy of existence" was simply discovered through induction, making it not an axiom, that's all.

How so? I mean obviously "existence exists" is an axiom, but I don't see how that is exactly the same meaning as saying "there is a primacy of existence".

Sure you'd be free to go somewhere else, but a corporation can still operate in a selfless manner ("it's not about what you want, it's what the company wants!"). I would leave such a company precisely because of a collectivist nature of the people in the company. Of course, this guy didn't even elaborate on how Goldman Sachs had a selfless culture.

"So, after I read Rand's books, I imagined a world following Rand's theories, but I could not imagine how it could exist without the judgement of the marketplace being an integral part. By that I mean the individuals that make up the marketplace would look at each person or company that they trade with and would weigh whether they think that person/corporation is adding to the rationality of the world, or lowering it, and would only trade with those who they felt were acting rationally." The level of "rationality" in the world as being important is too close to a collectivist mindset and sounds very utilitarian. The amount of value you get is what should matter. I wouldn't refuse to deal with a racist businessman that denies services to minorities because he is "decreasing" rationality of the world, but because he is actively destroying things that are of value to me, which would be any hope of living in a place where anyone is rational. It is still similar to what you are saying, but I don't think you recognize the importance of "value" as much as you should.

A collectivist would not even consider thing like taxation to be force for reasons that lead them to be a collectivist in the first place. It certainly does follow that if one is an altruist that the world should operate as a collective whole. Of course, it doesn't follow from anything that altruism is good, so the root premises are certainly irrational. But it would also be irrational for a person to say that too much regulation is force (like a Republican would) if a person is a collectivist. I can at least follow a socialist's logic. But a typical Republican makes utterly no sense to me if they talk about more than 1 topic at once because its they're so inconsistent with even their own premises.

It would be safe to say he would also include himself as one of the others. If you want something, *someone* has to pay for it, whether it is yourself or someone else. Of course, you can't violate another person's rights in order to protect rights. So really, I think the issue is whether or not the other person considers taxation to be force. He'd probably make some argument that taxation is the only way to pay for government. If the person can't recognize that people *like* having their rights protected, and that people pay for things that they *like*, they will never understand rights protection can be paid for voluntarily. Is it really accurate to say "rights protection" is a "right", though? I'm not sure how best to explain it, but it would also mean your rights of rights protection need to be protected with rights protection. It just wouldn't make too much sense.

"And no, I have no idea how to fix all the problems in the world (Oprah??? Please....). The world is a chaos system. The math on fixing it is beyond what we can calculate." But there is no "calculating", there is no way to develop a system that will *make* people rational without initiating force! Capitalism is advocated by Objectivism because it is the *only* system that allows people to live free and rationally. If something is in your self-interest and it is of value to you, you should do it! If that includes providing education to kids, then start a school. If you agree with that, that's good. And if you agree that what someone else has shouldn't matter to an individual, including money, then I'm not really sure what about Objectivism doesn't make sense to you in regards to this thread.

I do understand you're talking about consciousness *developing*, but I seriously doubt that a fetus exists in an environment absent of any sensory information. At some stage it certainly will be develop all its senses inside the womb. And perceive reality outside the womb by means of hearing. But this would be such a late stage anyway that it may be impossible to abort the fetus without "giving birth."

"the position of Objectivism appears to be that while the widespread practice of Objectivism would lead to increased suffering and death among the impoverished, even those impoverished through no fault of their own (I guess those 2-year-old Somalis shouldnt'a voted for totalitarianism!), that in the long run the world will be better off... so it's a better system." They're impoverished through force. I'm not sure even how it would appear there would be an "increase in suffering."

"If that it so, then it is important to explain the reason behind acceptance of the disparity of the starting point in which each man enters the equation." Not everyone is equal. They are only born equal in the sense no one has any more or less rights than another. Accept what you have and make the most of it. If you are lacking something because of a result of *force*, then it would be a good idea to bring any rights violators to justice. If you think a person deserves more of something, than give them more. Provided you don't steal from others (tax) to do so. Whether or not helping a person is rational is up to you and dependent on your values. Helping a person *just* because they're not as well off is not rational.

You're not exactly doing it for the government, in the government's place. Nor are you exactly serving anyone. What do you mean by servitude, though? (My questions aren't rhetorical, I'm actually asking) "A state of subjection to an owner or master" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/servitude) is pretty good and doesn't mean that all servitude is forced. Being a servant to a person can be entirely by consent. They have power over you in the sense that they're you're boss, and also you are doing things for them in their place. But as soon as you person are *forced* to remain in that relationship, you are a slave. and to prevent a debate on what a "master" is, I'll use another dictionary definition: "an employer of workers or servants"

If I'm not defining slavery, do you think I'm defining anything at all? What should I call the thing that I recognize as slavery? I suppose I do fail to understand what a definition is. If I am just describing something, what am I describing? Even still, I think what I am identifying still falls under your definition of slavery. But we still disagree on what "dehumanizing force" would be. So we're not getting anywhere. That's where the "definition" argument always leads and the disagreement probably stems from something more fundamental.

I think I may be confused on what you're trying to figure out. I would not say people who earn a living at the stock market are necessarily the most productive people, but they are still productive to some extent nonetheless. I should also note that "rules of fairness" are immoral and not rational. I would agree that most people in the business community (or at least at 'big business' level) are looters and use the government for special favors.

"they often rely on methodologies that even the most fervent Objectivist would have problems with in order to achieve an edge in the game, from clearly illegal acts such as having inside knowledge of documents that will be released to the public and thereby influence the market, to the simple (and perfectly legal) advantage that they hold a seat on the exchange and can act on the released information faster than the 'average' investor. " I wouldn't say any of those things are bad. Nothing wrong with "inside knowledge". Nothing wrong with having first-hand knowledge and being able to use it. If you think there is too much uncertainty involved, then don't do the stock market. I'm not sure if discussing the stock market matters too much. A stock market doesn't *have* to exist in a free market. Capitalism isn't defined by a stock market. The successes and failures of capitalism don't need to revolve around stock markets.

Losing freedom to make your own choice is a significant loss of humanity. Losing that to any degree is, to me, extreme. Being a mindless zombie has nothing to do with slavery. Until you die, you can't ever really be an empty shell of a human. A mindless zombie effect can be a result of force, but anyone can be a slave without being a zombie. Slaves in the 1800's rioted, many were definitely not mindless zombies. Many slaves seemed like pretty much regular people to me. Except the ones that didn't accept their condition and did something about it. When filling out a tax return, that isn't the only time you "pay taxes". Any time you work and get a paycheck and pay taxes on it, you are a servant to whoever takes your money. They're putting a claim on you and your property. You are being forced to serve them. I probably should also add that it slavery should imply a claim of ownership over another person and their property. That resolves some ambiguity between "force" and "forced servitude". I defined slavery in this sentence: "I would say forced servitude is slavery. If someone is commanding you to do something, and you are forced to do it, what else would you call that besides slavery?" I really do not know what else to call that except slavery. I am not saying getting punched in the face is slavery. But if someone asked me to punch myself in the face or else I'd get my nose broken, I might be in a condition of slavery. The person is making a claim on you.

I'm not sure how taxation or a draft is any less evil. You wouldn't say that a draft is not extreme dehumanizing force? Isn't any amount of force extreme and dehumanizing? As long as you are under threat of force and making a certain choice because are forced to, and commanded to obey or face the consequences, you are a slave and still fits your definition. As long as I am *forced* to do as the government commands, I am a slave. I am effectively property of the state; it takes my money, it can legally take as much as it wants from me (as far as I know, the US constitution in particular has no limit set as a "max limit of taxation"). If there were a draft again in the US and somehow taxation were illegal, I'd be a slave because I could be sent to war anytime the government wanted me to (or a slave when I turn 18 at least). Or I'd face the consequences. I don't think anyone is suggesting "once a slave, always a slave", simply that you're a slave while under a threat of force and commanded to obey.

Tell him that taxation is theft, you'd also look ridiculous. I do get what you're saying, Barack is black and blacks used to be slaves. Saying he's a slave to the state is like suggesting slavery hasn't really been abolished. But we all know slavery has been abolished! It probably would be a funny comedy sketch, but also highlight how lightly people take freedom. That was quite a tangent, but anyway... I would say forced servitude is slavery. If someone is commanding you to do something, and you are forced to do it, what else would you call that besides slavery?

Raising prices does not always mean increased profitability. You get more money per item sold, but could you end up selling less items if you increase the price? It doesn't "cost" lives. There are operating costs. Employees need to be paid. New drugs need to be developed. You could say giving away drugs for free costs lives as well. Yup, or a giant yacht, fund an awesome movie, donate to charity, whatever the person wants. It's up to the individual to decide what is rational, but the things I listed would typically be good and rational choices by Objectivist standards. Unless the person in question is only buying those things to "look good to others" even if they hate yachts/movies/charities. He should do what is rational and in his self-interest. It implies following *his* values and not violating rights. It would also imply considering self-esteem, reason and purpose to be virtues. Morally, this is what he should do. But even if he is acting immorally, he should be allowed to do anything he wants as long as he doesn't violate anyone's rights. I'm not sure if I'd say any of those are a good response. I think my response to your previous quote is a good response.

...wrong about what? All I was saying is that becoming a soldier in *that* case, if you were an Aztec, would be irrational to physically fight the militarily superior Spanish conquistadors.

I would think it's a major factor, yes, provided side one isn't outequipped. If one side is better equipped, like the Aztecs vs the Spanish, it would be suicide to fight as a soldier if you were a Aztec. Basically no question that you'd die. In that case, if you wanted to fight for your freedom, becoming a writer is one way to do so without guaranteeing death. I'm not sure how I can interpret that as anything but altruistic. It would be more productive to talk about if you agree with me about your rational mind being the only value where you'd rather be dead than do without.

Technically, yes. So you train to be better. If you aren't a good soldier, then being a soldier probably is not the best way to fight for freedom. Yes, if it is literally a suicide mission. As in, it involves dying in order to accomplish (like kamikazes). I won't get *any* benefit out of dying on purpose in such a situation.