dream_weaver

Who is being promised utopia? Ayn Rand has simply revealed her view of existence, and of the nature of mankind. Trying to paint her as being more Christian than she realized hardly bolsters what you are advocating.

Could it be, that spreading it via philosophical discourse is simply a recognition on her behalf of the human condition, as you called it earlier? By human condition, where you referring to human nature?

Are you perhaps confusing an advocation of Objectivism for a disposition toward persuasion?

I had not considered my position as resigned. Looking down your outline, I am going to have to review some of this thread. Part IV on your outline brings to mind the ancient text "The Art of War".

The 'muzzle of a gun' is a metaphor. It means that via socialism, the tenants are imposed on you by force. Against a government, you submit, and seek other means of redress. You do not throw yourself in front of the juggernaut. A predator at my door, on the other hand, should get dealt with appropriately. Choosing Capitalism is a choice, just as those who choose socialism do so by choice, backed by the force of the monopoly called government who are then using that force and not for the sole purpose of upholding individual rights, Objectivism is disposed toward philosophy, which, incidental, it happens to be. Practical implementation of this philosophy for anyone has to, by the nature of what philosophy is, be understood to be accepted before it can be practiced. This brings it right back to two individuals reading the same words, but grasping them differently by the nature of how they have chosen to automatize the language for themselves.

So in other words, you just don't see how Objectivism is a philosophy that provides a way of understanding the world in which we live, while there are those who do see how Objectivism is a philosophy that provides a way of dealing with the world in which we live? Regarding this matter, it's pretty simple. We understand that choice ends at the muzzle of a gun. You appear to understand that choice ends at the muzzle of a gun. We understand that a government limited to upholding individual rights is one that should not end the choice at the muzzle of a gun. You seem to say that the government that exists currently offers to end the choice at the muzzle of a gun. We are both asking, how do you go about instituting a society that it's government does not resort to ending the individual's choice at the muzzle of a gun in a world where governments often end up resorting to ending the individual's choice at the muzzle of a gun. So aside from pointing out to people who resort to using the muzzle of a gun to implement their choices, how do you keep them from resorting to using the muzzle of a gun to implement their choices?

A theory of resistence. So, if I innoculate myself against bad ideas with good ones, this only allows me to resist bad ideas. As you stated earlier, you do not find the Objectivism persuasive at this point. So even though I've developed a resistence to socialist ideas, that does not prevent them from being implemented by the legal monopoly of the use of force which should only be used where an individual's rights have been violated. What is the difference here? Why can I read up on Objectivism, look at reality and see that it is consistant, while you can view the same words, look at the same existence and not be persuaded the same?

Galt's Gultch was a retreat. It was a place to come and get away from where the fictional characters where getting their hands dirty. Atlas Shrugged concretized what could happen if the obstacles to a full implementation and realization of socialism were removed. America for decades was a "Galt's Gultch". As countries around the world tightened their embrace to socialism, the "men of the mind" fled to America in what is referred to as the "brain drain". It remains to be seen if the American sense of life is going to be pushed to the point that it reasserts the role of the government must play with respect to the governed. To do so, however, it must be perceived as the clear, moral, and just course to pursue.

Yes, there are some that are positing that Objectivism proposes property rights are somehow unrestricted. I don't consider such a confused position to be one consistent with that of promoting Objectivism. Does misunderstanding Objectivism hinder its potential influence on the culture? Clearly it has to be understood before it can be accepted. There are many misunderstood points of Objectivism. The onus of correcting those misunderstanding lay in the individual(s) that desires to cultivate an understanding. As to whether this and other contributions of mine within this thread, or any others threads on this forum add to the discussion, may depend on if others find partisan squabbles between dissidents and apologists very enlightening. When dealing in the realm of ethics, the expression "lifeboat ethics" creating situations as examples from which to derive the rules of moral conduct. The expression "lifeboat economics" comes to mind regarding trying to weigh issues like the OP tendered.

Not really. I think I can grasp though, that those who are politely trying to correct their errors are likely to be more adept at it than those who do not put forth such an effort.

Do you own property, Johnathon13? I earlier explained, there is a 40 acre chunk of land that exists in a living will that is currently under my charge which is also co-governed by the legal survivor. If the desire to sell the parcel on the lake,did not provide access to that parcel, would you consider purchasing it? The road that passes by the property is currently a public roadway. Let's call that a state provided easement that taxes are levied to maintain. The property on the lake is nearly a mile from this public roadway. In order to access this property, you need to drive a mile down a two-track road that has been hewn out of the woods. Even if we sold the remaining acrage to another speculator, or one that desired to keeps said property intact for themselves, the fact that the two-track was cut into the wood to provide access to the lake-front parcel should be sufficient for a judge to declare it as "easement by necessity" as it was implied to be the means of getting from the public roadway by using it as the means to get to the property in question. The buyer who decides to purchase the remaining lots with the intent of integrating them is just a responsible for questioning the two-track that was providing access to the "landlocked" parcel earlier sold one mile away from the public roadway. The prospective owner of the lakelot plot, even if the easement was not explicitly identified in his purchase agreement, was led to believe that he would be able to get to the public road via the two-track, by using the two-track to be shown the parcel in question in the first place. edited: Incidently, the maintainance of this two-track, is currently maintained by the owner(s) of the properties. The state does not plow or maintain this two-track. To acquire this status, the property owners would need to arrange a contract with the county or city to bring that action about.

I see from the website listed in your signature links to an acadamy. Within this acadamy is listed philosophy. On the list of philosophy is both Christianity and Objectivism. On the Blog de Cortes is a short blurb on "Rescuing Altruism". What moral system is Socialism and Christianity predicated upon? What is the moral system that Capitalism and Objectivism share in common? What is the relationship between faith and force? What is the relationship between reason and freedom? Do you suppose it is Socialism and/or Christianity that bring about faith, or that faith lays the foundation for Socialism and/or Christianity? The analogy to a game of chess is a non-sequitur. Chess requires the use of reason by both players. In life, reason is not automatic. Most people like to think that they are right in their methods of arriving at their conclusions, even if they have not examined those methods. It is not that Objectivists are "the smart ones". An Objectivist simply seeks to integrate their knowledge using reason rather than some other method. This is something each individual has to do for themself. This is why "the board" can't just be wiped, if you will. Capitalism will never be implimented by simply arguing its merits. For the system of Capitalism to be built, it is the foundation of faith and altruism that needs to be replaced with reason and a moral code that is structured upon it.

Then shouldn't you be off serving society as the socialists would have you do, rather than advocating socialism on this forum? If you start posting what you claim is evidence for socialism here, you will probably find it weighed and measured and found wanting.

The cold hard fact that remains is that it did occur. Even the discoveries of Aristotle were swept aside . . . for a span of time. Regarding human nature, Victor Hugo points out that an invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.

So what can we conclude from this narrow example? That regulation determines whether the market is open or black, not whether commerce occurs, even under the most opppressive [sic] circumstances. Dare we generalize from that? It would appear that you have exemplified your answer through the generalizations preceding your rhetorical question. If the price of the black market is not too high for you to pay, then by all means, battle for it - as for me, the inventive age (a.k.a. the "guilded age") has "case closed" stamped on a period of time where man's mind was more or less not impeded by government regulation, regulation encouraged by the desire, not for answers, but for the reassurance that there are no answers other than faith in authority or that mankind is innately depraved.

Obviously commerce continues in spite the degree of regulation imposed on the markets. There is even the "black market" that evolved within the Soviet Union.

Added to my wish list. Thanks for the "heads up".

Where is the courage to enter a market where predatory politicians and bureaucrats lurk waiting to pounce on their prey? That is being demonstrated out there each and every day.

I can't help but wonder who the "sissy's" are; those who are willing to enter the market armed only with the principle of individual rights governing their economic actions and transactions be they in a producer or consumer sense; or those who think that they need a paternal figure to intervene and assure them that they will be "safe" from the "predatory producers" or "cut-throat competition" that "free markets" supposedly bring about.

Judge Narragansett has the unwritten governing principles that all have agreed to abide by via his decisions in cases of disagreements. At the end of the novel, he is observed amending a formal written document of governing principles.

The Libertarian view of "freedom" misses this by extending "freedom" to take any action an individual choose to take, because to Libertarians, "freedom" means "freedom" under all contexts, a case of context dropping. Or in an opposing view that a man is not "free" because he cannot fly, or gets hungry, or is bound by other metaphysically given facts. Either way, it is method of grasping and inter-relating principles that seems to be elusive and appears to be difficult for many to grasp.

What principle gives one individual the "right" to landlock another?

Strange Cousins: Molecular Alternatives to DNA, RNA Offer New Insight Into Life’s Origins The group demonstrates for the first time that six of these unnatural nucleic acid polymers are capable of sharing information with DNA. One of these XNAs, a molecule referred to as anhydrohexitol nucleic acid or HNA was capable of undergoing directed evolution and folding into biologically useful forms. "This is a big question," Chaput says. "If the RNA world existed, how did it come into existence? Was it spontaneously produced, or was it the product of something that was even simpler than RNA?"

Simpler Times: Did an Earlier Genetic Molecule Predate DNA and RNA? According to Chaput, one interesting contender for the role of early genetic carrier is a molecule known as TNA, whose arrival on the primordial scene may have predated its more familiar kin. A nucleic acid similar in form to both DNA and RNA, TNA differs in the sugar component of its structure, using threose rather than deoxyribose (as in DNA) or ribose (as in RNA) to compose its backbone.

Scientists Discover Possible Building Blocks of Ancient Genetic Systems in Earth's Most Primitive Organisms A team of scientists from the United States and Sweden announced that they have discovered AEG within cyanobacteria which are believed to be some of the most primitive organisms on Earth. Cyanobacteria sometimes appear as mats or scums on the surface of reservoirs and lakes during hot summer months. Their tolerance for extreme habitats is remarkable, ranging from the hot springs of Yellowstone to the tundra of the Arctic.