freestyle

May as well put the chum in the water: They can "honor" whatever the heck they want so long as it doesn't have the force of law behind it.

I read the whole thing... Not one instance of the word "God", btw. Read it for yourself. (PDF Download) Ever read FDR's Second Bill of Rights? That's the "pledge" we get from the other side. I think the Clarion piece may be a bit hyper-critical. "CAN" ... blah, blah blah, "advance the common good". It is not portrayed as a duty here. Perhaps it suggests an ideal, but clearly not a duty. (This doesn't make it correct, but it is not an argument for sacrifice in the name of the common good... at least in that quote)

What is the moral thing to do to the individual who does not consent? Your argument is similar to the justification for a draft. I agree that the number *required* for the proper functions of government would likely be at about 5% of what it is now. Why would this rational society knowingly leave such a crack in their foundational principle and allow that 5% to become 5.3% taken, and of course, so on? I still don't see your concrete moral justification for the use of uninitiated force to take the product of individual labor ("without consent" being the crucial point here). And, by the way, are you arguing for a progressive tax here too? Flat? How then do you reconcile (morally) that a highly productive member of the society be forced to PAY more for being in this country than someone who may choose to live off the bare minimum of productive work? I think we're too far off from this ideal to project accurately of the practicalities and difficulties that may arise in a voluntarily funded government. I don't doubt that there would be much to figure out. I just don't jump to the conclusion that only government force can be the solution. If I were alive 250 years ago, "Impossible" might have been a word I'd use to describe man's chances of ever walking on the moon, but not for a tax free society. The only way I can track your logic there is if I assume you envisioned a society where only these two companies were responsible for the funding of the government. Otherwise, it makes no sense. The most wealthy and productive individuals in society are always going to be the ones who generate the lion share of funds which their government operates on (whether those funds are taken or given). The moral scenario is for them to be provided voluntarily.

Poorest? Really?!? You must not like the more freestyle based songs. My favorites from him are more story based, for sure, but I like when he plays with words like that, almost like he is showing off how easy it is for him. "Fork was in the road, took the Psycho-path, Poison ivy wouldn't have me thinking rash" He's got jokes with in jokes even when he's rhyming about nothing. "Brain dead rims, yeah stupid wheels" C'mon... that's funny.

Are you speaking for "the greater good," as opposed to the individual rights of man? I read the topic literally: Is taxation moral? I was under the impression that it is Objectivist canon that, for obvious reasons, there are intermediary (and practical) steps prior to restricting the current government's ability to tax. Specifically, a reasoned and rational process of de-control preceded by a change in the philosophy dominating the culture. Related audio from Rand in a Q&A (about 3 min mark) listen to the first question and her response in the Q&A link. Yes, assuming a critical mass of individuals in that society who chose to think. Absolutely. Picture a business like, say Home Depot, able to operate freely with no taxes and no regulations. The *price* for operating in that free of a realm would necessarily be built into their operating costs. In a society structured as such, the people (customers) will contribute, at minimum, what is *necessary* for them to remain in such a society... Those with the most wealth and the most to lose will protect that wealth. Those with less means will simply "vote with their dollars" (i.e. who they choose to help make wealth in the free market based on competition) Imagine: Home Depot has a logo of a fighter jet as part of their brand (everyone knows this means they pledge a certain amount of their profits to voluntary defense contributions). Lowes is their biggest competitor. Their logo is joined with an image of the scales of justice. They do real well too. Even in our mixed economy you can buy water at Starbucks for like 3 bucks and they donate to some cause. I have a friend who owns a car brokerage business which is branded as "charity driven" (www.drivewiseauto.com/). Even in this highly controlled and mixed economy, he has found a place in the market and does alright for himself and his family. (Remember, this is all voluntary - no force or fraud involved -- I know this may make some of you cringe, but as Objectivists, it should not) If there is a true *need*, why assume first that the people will not provide for their own selfish well being? Why assume that they must be forced to do this from the start? Disclaimer: This is not to say we could institute this today. As mentioned above, it requires a cultural and philosophical shift by enough people)

Here is an enlightening video of Mr. Tolle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPg9DnMP2D4

i liked the trailer because it didn't seem to give away how it ends (which they often do). Inception was great, btw. First movie I really liked in quite a while.

Here's the trailer. I hadn't heard of the movie, until seeing this thread. Sounds like you think it is worth going to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAkwRmIB5l0

Yes, Ayn Rand answered this question directly. The text is in Ayn Rand Questions and Answers on page 195. Q: "How did you select the names of your fictional characters?" Ayn Rand : "My characters are not named after real people. I made a long list of first and last names for both heroes..." If I remember correctly after that she states something about them sounding good together.

Here, try this first: Explain to me how someone other than me has the first right to the fruits of my labor.

She puts something out there, people pay her for it. Not only that, she's in an extremely competitive industry. That's all good. Yes, that does mean she is productive. I'm not sure I understand your point though. I wouldn't expect Objectivists, even if they are not fans of her, to deny her productive success. ...by the way, I like Eminem (another big money maker)... But the reason I like him is the creative talent he displays. Specifically, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt0CtK-58t0.

"rubberized" Please be honest, was that it?

Is this the same leader who claimed that Iran has no homosexuals? I tend to doubt this man's declarations.

Perhaps he should ask for a copy of the contract he has signed and is obligated?

The responses of in that comment section are actually much better than I would have thought. She even has some defenders. Contrast that with what you see at CNN and it is downright depressing. Check out the responses to Yaron Brooks latest opinion piece over there; http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/16/opinion-our-moral-code-is-out-of-date/

Disingenuous from the start. First, observe my emphasis above in red. Now, here is what the author "elipses" out of the quote about animals: "In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies." The author of the piece is claiming that Rand is "clearly" stating that animals act for their own survival, which is true, but he leaves out (intentionally, or because he is obtuse) that where the animal does not have required knowledge on how to survive, it will die. Look what this FOOL ends up arguing. For this to be "proof" that Rand is wrong, he must be stating that the male mantis KNOWS that he is going to get eaten after procreation. Like just about every attempted critique of Rand I ever read, they need to mischaracterize or outright lie about her meaning to make their point.

Yes. "Prehistorical men were physically unable to survive without clinging to a tribe for leadership and protection against other tribes. The cause of altruism’s perpetuation into civilized eras is not physical, but psycho-epistemological..." “Selfishness Without a Self,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 50 (via Lexicon "Tribalism" heading) Those who do not choose to think will invariably follow the heard. Like you said though, this doesn't mean they are incapable of choosing to think.

I wore the shirt today and, at a 2 year olds birthday party, was asked roughly 8 times who John Galt was. Answer to kids: A hero in a book. Answer to adults -per your comment: "(spoiler alert) He's the hero in Atlas Shrugged". (Speaking in parenthetical is tricky btw). I actually don't think it spoils it for anyone to say that. You read the first line and you'll be like 700 pages into the book thinking, "hero"!??! yeah right, when do we meet him!? I think I'll change my standard response to: "It is the first sentence in the book Atlas Shrugged, read the book for more detail."

I give just give the correct answer. "He's the hero in the book, Atlas Shrugged".

Ok... more appeal to authority then... I'd like to know where I can find objective sources about Islam. For instance, is this author lying?: http://www.hudson-ny...-equals-victory -- I'm following up. Considering the event and site that this specific issue is revolving around, I find it objectively prudent to heighten one's focus on the facts of this matter. There is an objective reality. There are, in fact, recent violent realities directly and concretely associated with (yes, among others) this specific belief system in question. It seems an especially odd (and intentional) evasion of reason and reality by those who appear to assume that this Iman's intentions are benign (as opposed to holding, at least, a neutral view as the baseline). We will never know how many passengers on those planes evaded knowledge that something was wrong. On the one plane where they figured it out (and took action), there can be no evading the fact that a building full of lives was saved.

It is amazing how many of these exact question Ayn Rand answered directly over her lifetime. I came across this the other day and have been meaning to return to this thread. From Ayn Rand Answers, page 122 - Question: I take it from reading The Fountainhead, that you have a low opinion of social workers. What is your opinion of doctors and nurses? Ayn Rand: I do not oppose all social workers. Both Howard Roark and Peter Keating are architects: there are good and bad men in every profession. What I am opposed to is the collectivist-altruist kind of social worker (like Katie from The Fountainhead). That sort is frequently encountered, but that doesn't mean all social workers are frustrated little tyrants. But why ask me about doctors and nurses? My guess is that since I don't think human beings should be sacrificial animals, you think I'm opposed to any profession that helps others. Doctors and nurses are desperately needed, and a great deal of skill and knowledge goes into making both. (I would not place them in the same category as social workers.) But I do reject the collectivist-statist idea that doctors should be regulated and controlled (for example, under Medicare) because others need them. I don't insult doctors by assuming they are self-sacrificial animals. When they are good, they deserve all the money they make. No good doctor goes into medicine to help others altruistically. He goes into it to fight disease. He is a scientist. He is for life: not to help others, self-sacrificially, while hating his job. That type never helps anybody. It would appear that the answers given in this thread communicated the correct, objective, position very well.

Actually, she (Rand) cleared that up very succinctly. As suggested by 2046, I'd point you to two crucial essays. I think you'll find your answers about the Objectivist's position in the following short essays by Ayn Rand: The Nature of Government & Man's Rights Do those leave any further gaps in your understanding of the Objectivist's fundamental principle on the subject? Do you see any errors or flaws? If so, let's discuss further.

The flaw is the word slave. Capitalism works by having the division of labor done via voluntary, mutually agreed upon trade of value for value.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" This has been hashed out before. Take that literally. So long as there is agreement that NO LAW (Sharia or otherwise!) be involved with respect to religion, people with right leaning politics can stand on some common ground, whether they privately choose "faith," or not. The free/private market will do just fine without the need for any government FORCE.

There are some nice answers about this in the Q&A about religious conservatives in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A. Because the question was asked, "Why should we keep religion out of politics?", AR was able to expound on that specific in a way I don't recall her doing in detail anywhere else. And what strikes me is that, at least in these particular answers, she doesn't antagonize religious people in any way. She merely explains, logically, why it has no place in politics. This is the big problem with Beck (as I see it). He wants religion in politics (or, hasn't yet figured out that he really doesn't want it there). Palin? I'm not so sure, but I'm currently under the impression that she does fall back on religion as a basis for her politics, as opposed to reason. (We'll see where this "common sense conservatism" ends up.) I'll post a little bit, but if you have access, there are some good answers in here that I wish more who call themselves conservatives and/or tea partiers would read and take a stand on. I know there are those who consider themselves conservatives, are religious, but hold that their religion is a private matter and is not part of the foundation for their political arguments. That's a good thing. I was hoping the tea party (and its ties to the founding of the country) would re-introduce this proper separation as they promote capitalism and smaller government. Beck just muddied that up, but it is Beck trying attach himself to the Tea Party when I think it is much bigger than him. Ayn Rand in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A There is more in a related question/answer that follows. Searching for the quote on the internet, I only saw it come up in one place. If this is to be a fight on the political right, then I believe it is proper to demand a clear stance on whether or not a particular politician believes that religion is a POLITICAL or PRIVATE matter.