Jennifer

What is Objectivist view on animal abuse and how those who have been found abusing animals (be it dogs, horses, whatever) should be handled? I can see an issue with animals having rights, but is there a another way for this to be legitimized? I can't see in my mind a free society where people are found to be nearly killing horses and a large variety of other animals in cruel and often utterly disgusting ways like I have seen on tv and then them being able to get away scott free.

Hi everyone. So, I was in a discuasion with some Liberarian friends of mine about Atpas Shrugged when one of them chimed in statong that Ayn Rand actually created a voluntarist/agorist utopia in Galt's Gulch as it had no government. I disagreed with this person and then another person said they did not rwmember it having any government either. I do not currently have the book in my posession and it uas been some time since I last read it. Could someone verify or otherwise refute this claim for me please? I find it unlikely that Ayn Rand would make sucu a mistake but I would like to be able to prive it Apparently this guy named Stefan Molyneux, who I have seen a number of other things from him I disagree with (he is an anarchist libertarian) made a youtube video stating this and this claim has since exploded into online communities. As a side note, someone also made this xokment to me when I said it had a government:

A person I know emailed me this article and I would like to discuss it as well as have an Objectivist analysis of the argument presented within. http://redroom.com/member/tim-wise/blog/explaining-white-privilege-to-the-deniers-and-the-haters This is something I am constantly hearing about these days, this concept of "white privelege", and whenever I hear it, even though I am not well versed in this point of view or its argument, it makes me EXTREMELY uncomfortable almost instantly within that conversation or that environment I am currently in (partially because I am white, I suspect) and because it seems to be an attempted guilt trip over something of which I am not in any way at fault for. Privelege, to me, is one of those words that seems to be heavily abused these days, especially by the Left.

Was not sure which forum section to put this in. Could someone explain this to me. I was visiting a friends facebook page where they were commenting on how the Islamist party won 61% of the vote in Egypt: http://www.newser.co...egypt-vote.html Someone commented on their thread stating this: A woman responded with this: So here is my question: How would Ayn Rand/Objectivists explain this? It seems to be a moderate Islamist party that: http://en.wikipedia....nnahda_Movement Based on what I have read of Objectivist literature on this topic, this is not supposed to be possible over the long term, but this seems to be the case to a certain degree.

What a bunch of idiots. I am glad we didn't send over Clinton to help bail them out this time.

Dmastt, I like your blog! The design is different and interesting. I will keep it in mind and check it for content in the future. Consider the fact that you have been proven wrong already in this thread. Consider, perhaps, that people that give respect get respect. You make a regular habit out of insulting the Objectivist philosophy and Objectivists. Cynicism, ridicule, and sarcasm seem to be a highlight of your activity here. When you post things like this on your profile, clearly suggesting that we make up excuses to justify whatever actions we feel like, "brb, gone to snort coke off an enslaved sexworkers ass. all within the proper context of course." that is not something that gives you positive attention, nor should you expect it. Consider, perhaps, that people are likely to react better and be more supportive of an Objectivist-centric blog that posts actual content, rather than simply posting pictures with little quotes under them, essentially making it a website full of nothing but motivational posters of which there are billions and contribute little to nothing to the advancement of Objectivism or the knowledge of it. Show us something praiseworthy and we will "praise it." Maybe the judgement goes one way in your mind because the negativity is directed at you because you deserve it for being such a tool.

Ryan and 2 other people are also having problems and aren't in Florida. Also, you should copy your text from time to time, just like you should save your typed papers frequently, saved me more than once!

Yeah..my facebook was blowing up like crazy with how our justice system is an utter failure, how a murderer got away, and so on. I even had a few on there that were suggesting that someone should "pop" (i.e.) shoot her while she is walking down the street...but those were random adds so I quickly defriended those nuts.

Yeah...idk about the rest of the website but I am getting kicked out of the chatroom like every 2 minutes.

ok.... ??

Yes I do. There is NO ACTUAL LAW. It was an arbitrary judge ruling extended arbitrarily. Why is the judge being appointed god-like authority in this instance when we are well aware of, and can point to numerous, numerous instances of where they have made grossly unethical or unlawful rulings? From an earlier post: To answer the earlier question, I am upset becaues it seems like Objectivists sometimes care about the constitution as much as the liberals do. Regardless of whatever else happened, they were required by law to state which law they were violating that justified the action that was about the be taken, and they refused to do this multiple times. I would also like to see a proper refutation of what Louie said, of which CapitalistSwine quoted in his last post. I think this is a key element of this and I won't be satisfied with the position of the others here until a good answer is given on that point. It graetly disturbs me how often Objectivists seem to want to justify the governments actions whenever crack downs happen, or with the New York Mosque (when clearly, according to our laws, nothing could be done at that time) because it fits their own little wishes, but then they condemn to the highest order almost everything else the government does, it's almost like some Objectivists have an inner power-trip that gets set off when these things happen. I just don't get it, and it is frustrating.

If employing strawmen and ignoring gigantic swathes of history that seem to strongly suggest you are anything but not completely wrong on this point is how you are going to attempt to teach children how to thing critically then you have already failed them miserably. They broke no law. Jefferson was one of the greatest activists for freedom. The ones who weren't respecting the memorial were the cops, causing a huge ruckus and disturbing the peace. There was no need to ensure "safety" or "security" until they decided to get involved. You can clearly see at the beginning of the video that no one touring the memorial is even giving these people a second thought. This is the same bullshit argument that resulted in things like the Patriot Act. So if a cop tells you to stop doing something that isn't illegal, and you don't, and then you "taunt" them, that's a crime? How is this not the definition of a police state styled-event? How is this not morally evil? I also find it interesting that the fact you learned martial arts, whatever was going on with your sister, and all of that other crap has any relevance at all. I don't care about your personal achievements and experiences, I was talking about condemning political actions that, historically, have had numerous successes with respect to these types of things, whilst you are not assisting in bringing about political change in any sense. I have an uncle that is part of SWAT, I have a cousin that is a police officer, and I have a family friend that is part of security for national park and memorial grounds in D.C., i.e. the area of jurisdiction that this memorial falls under. Interesting that every single one of these people seems to think that this was poorly handled, that these officers were out of line, and that they had no right to proceed in the way they did considering they broke the law by violating numerous Constitutional rights provided to all citizens, such as being told specifically what law you are being reprimanded for breaking. With friends of freedom like you, we sure as hell don't need any enemies.

1. I have never seen any actual good reason, and 90% of the time no reason at all is provided, to dislike Al Jazeera. Please provide one. 2. Russia Today is fine. That is where I get most of my news these days. They are the most Libertarian style MSM-like (i.e. as in technology/money put into it) news organization I am aware of.

I found an article on Restore the Republic, it has a different camera view from the one in the original post so you can get another look at how things went down. It shows a lot more o the whole picture, since it's from the perimeter of the building, rather than right up close where you cannot always see what is happening: http://rtr.org/videos/2/21418 Adam Kokesh has had his own radio show, ran for Congress, was a strong advocate against the Iraq war after having fought over there, and now has his own tv show on RT with tons of liberty-oriented guests, and Yaron Brook is fairly high up on the list of recommended guests that are suggested. What are you doing? I think he is allowed to pick his little battles that are important to him on a personal level every once in a while, considering he is doing more than anyone in this forum the other 90% of the time. So what if it is not an "important" battle, we have entire organizations like CATO, ARI, Mises, FEE, and on down a hundred times over focusing on all of the "important" battles. What does that have to do with anything? Sounds like you just want to belittle their efforts whilst you watch Spongebob in your pajamas on Saturday mornings and discuss how the government sucks online. This attitude annoys me.

I think I would have to agree, I remember him mentioning a science fiction novel.