TLD

1. Not true: my choice of a movie is not a moral choice - unless you want to argue that choosing a movie that (for ex.) has an immoral theme and against my values is wrong; but that was not the context. 2. I presented the context - a law that is not moral can morally be violated - with obvious risk.

To keep it simple: Consequences matter; e.g. telling a lie in self-defense is moral. And many actions are not restricted by morality; e.g. deciding which movie to go to. If one's parent or a spouse says he/she does not want you to do something, it is not immoral to refrain from doing it if their value is greater than what you gave up. Violating a law that is immoral is not itself immoral. ETC. In other words, follow your values but don't be restricted when values are not at play.

The initial assumption was that one fully understood Rand. Such a person should not have errors of knowledge that pertain to Rand's fundamental principles and all that derives from them. Sure, one can make errors on philosophical issues without evading; but not the person initially described. "Continuing to object" for that person - when all objections should have been addressed - is immoral (because it is irrational). Note that I am not equating "objections" with "questions" or "mere disagreements" prior to full integration. It is important not to drop the initial context in these forums.

Clarification. I never said one could not disagree or give "reasonable objections." I said "No" to the question "Do you think it is possible for someone to read and fully understand Ayn Rand, yet disagree with her, AND not be immoral?" Those here who have noted people they know who can give reasonable objections to the philosophy have not said whether or not those objectives hold up. And they also admitted that most people - those with objections - do not understand the philosophy or have not studied it sufficiently to have reasoned objections. I am essentially saying that the objectors have never, to my knowledge, given fully rational objections, partly because they have not "fully understood" and fully integrated Obj.; and to continue to object - rationalize and/or evade - is immoral. It is not being too narrow or egotistical to answer No to the quesiton.

But if you are not convinced, then you have not fully integrated said principles - unless you believe there is some flaw in them. One does not have to "confirm firsthand" in order to be so convinced.

The last 3 of you are (as I read the initial question) misreading the question. "...read and fully understand Ayn Rand" does not refer to subjective statements by Rand; it means her philosophical principles. Don't over-complicate it. The answer as I presented has to be No.

Interesting question. Given Rand is fully consistent with reaity, reason and rationality, and that to "fully understand" is to fully integrate her principles and their consistency, one would have to agree short of serious rationalization and/or evasion (post-integration). If the latter, then he is not being rational, thus not moral.

This is the type of question that does not require working through an entire scenario. Show fundamentally why Capitalism is the only rational and proper system. Then someone can see why the Govt. does not have to regulate and help maintain a single water co. in a given area. With a truly free market, a monopoly would only exist if the sole water co. maintained the best rates and service that the market would enable. A job created is not necessarily someone else's job lost. A business started is not necessarily another business's loss. If wealth is earned and not a result of immoral behavior, no one else need lose anything. Wealth breeds savings and investment which helps the economy grow which ultimately helps everyone else.

Isn't it convenient to use her when it suits him. Beck's philosophy is very different from Rand's. As you must know, you can't be religious with an altruist morality and also be a Capitalist.

Rand defined herself as a radical for Capitalism (radical in the sense of being fundamentally for Cap.). Thus everything should be measured by how it supports freedom and individual rights. Thus, it is meaningless to talk about being Right or Left: neither political extreme comes close to Objectivism.

To add: Indebted to Nietzsche - nonsense. A contribution to her understanding - ok. To suggest Objectivists could possibly reject her philosophy over such a point - even if it was "arrogant" - is absurd. And I suggest that if you were truly an Objectivist, then you would not ask that question.

I answered your question. Given the way you asked it, nothing more needs to be said. Too many on this forum make way too much of a simple question. Keep philosophy as simple as possible.

Of course it only implies B. So I'm glad you don't need further comment.

One has to question your definition of "class division." A business owner, with great risk, builds a business, creates the jobs for the "workers at the bottom" and enables the production of a product. Supply and demand determine the wages for both those at the top at at the bottom. Once the product is produced, why do the "workers" now have a right to the owner's profits? Would you venture to guess what would happen if you decided to let the Govt. dictate how much the "workers" can take by force from the owners? Also note that most businesses provide benefits for the "workers" that they would not otherwise have. And if they don't incent the "workers" enough to produce, the workers can leave and/or request a wage increase. In other words, the free market works when left alone and no one's rights are violated. Isn't that more fundamentally important?

A lack of knowledge at birth has nothing to do with man's nature. While you may be trying to learn Objectivism, you show that you have read little or none of Rand's works. I would suggest that, before asking more such questions, you get a copy of Peikoff's OPAR and get a general understanding of Objectivist principles.

That addresses the point that one's fundamental values are objectively derived and would not differ; other things we value are subjective and need not be the same for all.

You went from "you could still donate" - without any evidence that that would happen today - to "so those important functions would still be financed", as if an unreasonable assumption can lead to such a conclusion; and you suggest that that is an argument that makes my assertion false. Look: there has been no disagreement in principle. But taxation is necessary in today's society to fund those services - that is a fact. Take a poll and see how many would voluntariy pay a "fair share" to fund them and you'll agree; how many of you are doing so? What we should strive to do is get govt. to eliminate unnecessary funding of all other services. That would get us closer to a Capitalist system, at which time we could talk about an alternative to taxation altogether.

Of course that's what I mean. OCSL's conclusions are inaccurate.

All I am saying is that Objectivism says that people need to support those functions. In our world, taxation is the only means of doing so. In a more perfect world - and being purely theoretical (which we do not always have the luxury of being), I agree that that would not be the case. BTW: the initial post was asking about Objectivist claims, not purely the position of Objectivism. Also, one always needs to distinguish between what Rand said and how to apply her principles in the real world.

There are some functions of Govt. that are rational and require taxation (for all practical purposes) to support them; e.g. courts, police, military. Yes, in a totally free system, there could theoretically be an alternative to taxation. But in today's context, taxation is required. To evade them entirely would be to evade one's responsibility to help support those functions.

To the extent that laws or tax code are "unjust"/immoral by Objectivist standards, it is not immoral to violate them. (Similarly, if someone wants to violate your rights, you have a right to stop them.) Re taxes, some are rational; therefore, total evasion of them would neither be right nor worth the risk.

I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion, albeit it is unhealthy and immature. I have known young people who, when presented with Obj. principles, said that it was too restrictive and prevented "fun" in their lives. I know adults who avoid principles in order to rationalize behavior. No one said it is easy to live up to Obj. standards - at least until one fully understands them.

You answered part of the question: total misunderstanding of the concept. Those who know the proper definition fall into 2 camps: 1. Those who see its strengths and consistency with rational morality - thus do not hate it 2. Those whose values are such that they cannot view it as a proper economic/political system. Its pretty simple; much education is required. Republicans, who are supposed to understand and accept it, are incapable of doing so today - partly due to their altruistic morality.

You adhere to principles or you don't; they cannot be compromised. And by such compromising, a principled person would not view that as "having fun." This is not a question to ask Objectivists.

No, no and no. Do you have something specific in mind?