TLD

Nothing you said says that my statement was false. "Enables" is the key word: it leaves people freer.... One's specific morality has nothing to do with what others will do. No one said that. Just think about what politicians find easiest. And think about an Objectivist making these points vs. a socialist. I will add, however, that the more a system is truly capitalistic, the less likely people will find the need or desire to achieve their goals immorally.

I see what you mean but that is not literally true. Capitalism enables more abuse (immoral and illegal behaviors) of the system which is exactly what liberals criticize. And while the purpose of Govt. is to protect our rights and prevent such abuse, it is unfortunately far easier for Govt. to place more controls on people than it is to monitor their actions for abuse.

As I already alluded, I don't agree: taxation is not "entirely contrary to Objectivism." What is necessary for the protection of rights must be paid for by the citizens; taxation is the only practical means for doing so. I already noted that one cannot talk about a meaningless concept of an "Obj. society." A majority cannot be relied upon to determine what is taxed. It is a different matter to talk about taxation that is immoral. There, we simply have to vote out the politicians who support that - still can't rely on any majority vote.

It's not that it frowns on taxation; it is about what the taxation is for. Where Govt. does not have laws that say it should fund roads, then the majority could not impose such a thing. Otherwise, a new law would be required that would only involve the Congress, not a majority of voters.

Note what I was responding to - "limits what govt. can do", not what others can do to each other. In a democracy, the people do not necessarily vote to limit rights; that depends on Govt. laws. We have rights here, the only difference being that our Republic affects how we vote for the poliiticians.

One needs protection from other individuals, not just Govt. ________________ By "majority voting", I assume Amo was referring to a democracy; and that does not mean a lack of support of rights. There cannot be an "Objectivist society"; so the hypothesis of unanimous voting is really meaningless.

Enslaving is preventing freedom. Your question is not rational. Inalienable rights are neither of those. But they are required for human survival and rational pursuance of goals.

You began witth the assumption the park is necessary at all. But if people want parks, they will pay a fee to use them. Otherwise, the park is not important enough. There would always likely be those who value parks and would provide land for such uses without cost.

This is much harder to answer when one does not define terms correctly. If you stick with "Objectivist" meaning one who agrees with and lives by the essential/fundamental principles of Objectivism, then I hold that an Objectivist can not be happily married to a non-Obj. I known people who tried, but only through evasion did they last together beyond the time it took them to know each others principles and values.

If you hold Obj. ideas, those things outside your control should not contradict the ideas. If you are fat et al and make rational attempts to correct for that but remain fat, that is not a philosophical issue. I certainly would not conclude from that that most of our lives are beyond our control! An Objectivist is an Obj. as a result of rational thinking. You are born tabula rasa!

Just that if Obj. principles are applied correctly, then the application is "part of her philsophy"; as opposed to something subjective or a mis-application.

I see your perspective. However: 1. there are so many concepts and ideas that could conceivably go into this category, this could simply become a tutorial on Obj. overall; and that is not the purpose of this forum as I see it. I could go into the Lexicon and come up with over 100 "misconceptions"; but so could one learning Obj. 2. looking at the examples above, most are incomplete explanations that will raise more questions by non-Obj.s. Thus, each "misconception" becomes a thread of its own - created by Obj.s, not by people trying to learn who will still independently ask their own questions however redundant. 3. As the same "misconceptions" come up with new questions, the explanations in your list will need to be constantly updated. But maybe there are a few who will find value in continuing this near-endless exercise.

I think this might be a futile exercise: 1. Objectivists should not have misconceptions; so they would not be the best contributors. 2. Non-Obj.s are not the primary focus on these forums. 3. Obj.s would have to do the work of providing the discussion about each perceived misconception. And there are not many who would do the kind of job - at least without a lot of effort - that would easily be understood by the non-Obj.s. 4. It could confuse readers into thinking that there are unclear areas of Obj., per se, rather than simply unclear thoughts of the contributors or readers. There exists the A.R. Lexicon and other materials that are already available from which people can learn what is necessary to get past the perceived misconceptions. Why re-create?

We were only talking about the last 2 decades. With such a trend toward Statism here, I do not believe the average person today has a better chance to be productive. The economic opportunities lost are and will continue to be immense. COl has increased significantly in the last several years; that will get worse if the likes of Obama get their way. But sure - and you did not need to explain - it is a better life in many respects if you look back 20+ years. You might not be able to have both fully. Ask those N Koreans how much freedom they have? Ironically, you speak of N Korea as if they are florishing, yet you talk of Totalitarianism as if that is not what exists there. (Yes, you did note it "lingers" there - as if it is going away.) Totalitarianism can exist at different levels. Chinese and Koreans can't talk on these types of forums as easily as we can. If you think that it is not growing in the U.S., then you do not understand Obama and how he was able to get elected. True Capitalism is certainly not on the rise; but the desire for other countries to play a bigger role in the global economy is leading them - under Govt. control for the most part - to be somewhat freer totalitarians.

That must be your sense of life: I don't see her main characters as you describe. Maybe you are focusing on the wrong characters. I also wonder why you would let an interpretation of fictional characters make you feel irrational. And why is it impossible to be like Howard Roark - holding his values et al? "Purpose" is a value, "productiveness" its corresponding virtue. One should not sacrifice for others, but that does not say one should not care for, support and love others. Your A/B questions are not appropriate. Objectivism is a philosophy and does not change an individual's basic character traits. All you need to understand is that if you are attracted to Obj. prinicples, than you have a relatively rational mind and a positive sense of life. It did not make me or others I know lonely et al. I assume that you are concerned that holding Obj. principles would make you more isolated from the world; but that does not have to be one's mindset.

Who is "we"? Ask if "you" are better off? As a healthy person, my life expectancy has not essentially changed since the 80s. Economically, this is the worst time since then. ETC. So why would I prefer today? There are always tech. advancements, but they are insignificant to the average citizen compared to remaining problems and a trend toward Statism. Do you want an iPod or peace and freedom? Internationally, totalitarianism remains strong, terrorism is a long-term threat, nuclear threats are greater than ever, etc. I can't see your perspective. On the other hand, I do my part in fighting the Govt. trend and attempt to live my life as free from coercion and negative economic impacts as possible.

I have to say no - in nearly all respects. First, its conditions in the US on which we need to primarily focus, not the "world." Then the answer lies almost solely in the trend toward Statism. Even medical advances are at risk with a Govt. takeover of HC.

To say nothing of the fact that one can't be pragmatic with principles: they work for all applications or none.

Rand saw the potential in man as a rational being, yet she understood what drove men to destruction and clearly saw the direction we were heading in this country. But no, she was over-optimistic. Note that she demonstrated, through Dagny Taggart, what it is to be over-optimistic. As Rand said, Dagny thought men were better than they actually are. She went beyond "benevelent universe."

Obviously abortion is a very emotional topic; the "pro-life" side made a very emotional presentation. I kept it quite fundamental and simply wiped out all their arguments - in theory. The audience was primarily - not totally - on their side, but I think a few did learn a new argument or two. As I said, they gathered around me to continue their emotions after the formal debate; I remained calm, and that always infuriates an emotional crowd. I can't say I made any mistakes. But one quickly learns in such an environment that it is hard to get emotional subjective people to listen to reason and rationality. I wish I had had more time to get them to calm down and see that my arguments were in fact more reasoned than others they had heard. Over time, I have been able to get pro-lifers to get really interested in the Objectivist approach to such an issue; of course, that does not change many minds. Thanks for asking.

That was not a question; it was a rhetorical response to you. You said "There is no physical evidence, but there is logical evidence. You can't have physical evidence of supernatural claims, it doesn't make those claims disprovable." There is no logical evidence - unless you want to present some. And one does not have to disprove those claims. Do you understand what I am saying?

And if he says that, you just say: that's true, but the burden of proof is on you - the believer. Logic dictates that. Keep it as simple as possible.

Some time ago, I debated a local "right to life" committee in a public forum; it attracted about 250 people and the local press; I was essentially alone! They tried to cut me off on several occasions; I reminded them that they invited me and the rules gave me equal time. Given the press was in attendance, they yielded. It was tough! And at the end, about 20 pro-lifers gathered around me and started their attack. I remained calm throughout - which infuriated them: they wanted an emotional, not intellectual, debate and did not get it. The press was somewhat surprised as well. This might give you a couple clues as to how it might all come down. Good luck, stay focused.

And what is the logical evidence? And one does not have to disprove anything.

It is all about protection of individual rights. Govt. must be the protector of those rights, else you have anarchy. E.g. post 7: what do you think would happen if everyone did not delegate their rights to govt? The fundamental rights are those necessary for our survival and achieving goals. They don't involve the use of force on anyone. Post 8: how would they be protected without taxation? Now, try to add a "right": does it meet the criteria of life requirement and of the lack of use of force?