VcatoV

So do you then believe that the system can reach a point where it is in itself the enemy and thus there is no point to follow something to legitimize a system that is inherently corrupt? If so, what is that point? And akin to your last statement, if that point is arrived at individually, does that individual have a moral imperative to act against it, even if the majority of others are not? If you do not believe that the system can reach that point, then what difference is there between following the system to maintain validity and following it out of moral duty?

Of course we are. Do you know how many Goldman Sachs officials work for the Obama Administration? Read this to get just a tiny glimpse. They were going to settle all along. It is a round-about way towards nationalization and redistribution, orchestrated by many high-ups in Goldman Sachs.

Not speaking for Mr. Odden, but he already answered this. Law is what is necessary between two rational individuals*. In your situation, some sort of legal agreement would have to be reached. Absent reason, and thus law, the division of the mood would be by force-warfare-conquest. *Really am talking more about an individual-rights based legal system, not some sort of legislative moral dictate from the leader. That system, to me, is just codified savagery.

Do you think that laws ought to be followed out of a moral sense of duty, or out of an attempt to maintain the validity of the legal system?

Hey guys-I have been posting here for a short bit of time, but never saw this forum. Thought it might be nice to introduce myself . My name is Jason. I am a college student in Austin, Texas. I have been reading Rand for over 10 years, and have poured through it. Mostly, though, my interest is in Classics and History-my majors. Classical philosophy, especially Aristotle, is really my specialty. In a strange way-the more and more I absorbed myself in Classical culture, the less interested I became in the modern-so save a few people, like Paterson, I am not well read on most modern philosophers. But that's just philosophy-my mind is not totally consumed with ideas . I work with animals and have a strong passion for the animal world. I have one dog, Cato (now you know where I got my name from) and two cats, Donovan and Adeline. Currently, I am in the process of creating an aquascape-my latest passion. I have an absolutely huge musical love, enjoying everything from Dylan to Abba, The Kinks to the Cure, Hank Williams to Led Zepplin. Hmm...don't know much else of what to say. So there you go-hi.

Hey guys-MSN is [email protected] Always down to chat .

I will watch that video-I assume you meant Meet your Meat? The insidiousness of the animal liberationists and other agents of misinformation is immense...so many times it is difficult to discover the truth through the murkiness of lies and falsehoods. Well sure-and that is fine if you personally believe that. The danger (and you have not said it yet, so not blaming), is taking your decision to vote with your dollar and turning it into a political law or regulation. But I am curious. Let us say you went out into the wild in Colorado, went fishing, and caught one. Would you eat it then?

Of course-I was trying to draw a distinction between that and the Marxist concept of "right to land". That concept leads to a justification for taking land away from others (evil landlords maybe), from those who have, to give to those who have not.

Just think I should point out: there is a moral reason against minimum wage laws. You do not necessarily need economics to discuss why it is wrong.

The concept of land ownership is a bit misleading. The right to private property does not mean that you have a right to a certain, alloted area of land due to human nature. As Rand correctly identified, it means the right to own the products of your mind. If you think this concept through, I believe it solves most of your problems. Do you believe that land is a right?

Entirely. In the sense that a nation's moral principles define the individual actions of the inhabitants-the more immoral they act, the more immoral or corrupt their political system will become. Of course there will still be the good, but as AS highlights, there comes a point where the good can no longer (or choose no longer) to support the bad, at which time the system collapses. Ethics comes before politics. Socialism is a larger branch of the collectivist ethics.

Two things: First-where did you find that information concerning torture? As Mr. Odden pointed out, there is a whole host of misinformation out there. Take a look at this document which describes how many animals PETA kills. For all the money that it takes in from gullible people, don't you think it could actually act upon principle and save animals? Or is that not really their agenda? Second-nothing is immoral that is natural, or within human nature. Human beings are omnivores, and ideally need meat as a part of their diet. Any action taken with the intent of consuming the animal would not be brutality. Shoving a metal rod through a cow's head on a conveyor-belt is no different than grabbing a chicken by the neck and swinging it around until it snaps in your backyard. Animal torture and cruelty are not done with the intent of consuming the animal. That makes it a very different act. I don't see any reason for you to be concerned about cruelty.

Thanks for the quote! It is refreshing .

-edited to add Constitution section. I apologize-I tend to shy away from writing lengthy posts, and so felt a bit overwhelmed-but I felt like I had something to say! You suspected-wisely. I have been thinking a lot about this subject, and how to make it more understandable. I am glad that we all agree (at least hopefully, it appears) in principle. So, how to explain things-as-they-are: Most of human society and history, with brief flashes, has been collectivist. As a corollary, most societies have been Societies of Status. Because the individual did not matter, and the group reigned supreme, the organization and separation of mankind into classes and groups was necessary. Most of these societies were stagnant or class-rigid, meaning that an individual could rarely move upwards (though very easily could move downwards). Thus each class developed its own characteristics: from dress to dinner, from song to handshake, from dancing to toilet protocol. All that mattered was an "individual's" status, and his life was solely determined by that status. Lord versus peasant, Spartan versus Helot, Brahmin versus Pariah, Wang versus Shumin-call it what you want to call it, you were not John-you were "Farmer". Consequentially, most laws were centered around your "status". Each group had different laws, different taxes, different demands. These societies cram history, and still exist today. Short of a history lesson, the Society of Contract was introduced by Rome. Ideally, the individual reigned supreme*1. Legally, all were treated equally, innocent until proven guilty, and possessing natural rights which emanated from one's individuality, nature, and being. The Society of Status was so pervasive, however, that Rome eventually became more mixed than it already had been, and eventually reverted to a Society of Status. For the United States, the next major event was Magna Carta-a document which is, quite literally, a contract. The participants at Runnymede drew up a contract with the king. The reason that this document survived, even being relevant in modern times, is that it reintroduced the foundations for the Society of Contract. In effect, Magna Carta planted the seeds. Though fruition came slowly, the seeds did grow-because many saw the principles of a contract-based society: namely, that it focuses upon the individual. Like I said before, I don't want to get too into it, but just look at the writings, principles, and inspirations of most of the enlightenment philosophers, from Voltaire to Rousseau. The contract-theory highlighted a principle to many people as much as a telescope does a distant star. Thus it is no wonder that so many great things came out of the establishment of the Society of Contract. Every relationship, whether it were between one to another or a man and his government, was viewed as a contract. But in their frenzy for liberty and the beauty of that distantly-shining star, most legalized, nationalized, and proselytized the telescope. Is it any surprise, then, that when the energy of the telescope finally collapsed as it naturally would, so many in Western Society, especially in Europe, stood in stupor as they were no closer to attaining that distant star than the first time they gazed upon it. The star continued to burn brightly, but they had failed to get there-and thus, in the dark vacuum that remained, the Society of Status returned to Europe-and is quickly returning here. The Constitution, as originally designed, was a contract between the government and male property-holders*2. It was assumed that limiting eligibility to property-ownership would produce a vested interest in the machinations of government. Obviously, the erosions of the Constitution added continuous faults in the motor, turning what could have been pebbles of problems into boulders. It was nevertheless supposed that these property holders would be signing "two" contracts upon purchasing property (legally extended to rent, inhabitants, etc.): one to the individual from whom you are purchasing the land, and the other to the "government", or the rest of the property holders. The second contract, embodied in the oath of office ceremonies, was aimed at ensuring that all Americans would sustain from violating the rights of others in exchange for the protection of one's owns rights being violated. This was the "contract" That the Society of Contract is based-upon or agrees with individualism is without question; the problem lies with the way these intellectuals attempted to implement their love for individualism. It was a contradiction: mostly, as has been the historical case, because the Society of Status was still so pervasive and powerful a force. In the event of a contradiction, two things will assuredly happen: 1.) the individual discovers and corrects the error, 2.) the "timer" runs out and the contradiction eventually destabilizes the entire system, forcing one to revert or compartmentalize. Clearly, Ayn Rand sorted out this contradiction, and set the foundations for a new Society. Her beliefs about government, from the absence of a legislature to no taxation, stem directly from her views of an individual, the nature of rights, and the relationship between individuals. It is possible, perhaps probable, that the Society of Contract is nothing more than a cline between the Society of Status and the Society of ____(Society of the Individual? ). That is...an interesting discussion. *1 Though there is much to disagree with concerning the Society of Contract, the importance lies in the principles, rather than the method of implementation. *2 Ironically, the elementary unit of the society of status is almost always the family. That only males could vote does not show sexism as much as it does a continuation of the belief that th elementary unit was the family, legally, while crying out that it was the individually, in principle. The male was supposed to be the father of the family, who voted and made decisions as the "head of the house".

Help me if I am incorrect-I do not have the article on hand-but did she not say that it was amoral?

Class as a measure can be a valid concept-but even then, the measure has a subjective basis. How do you define class? The three-class system is a vestige of systems like the French system, which had three classes: Nobles, Church, Peasants. Marx had two classes: proletariat and bourgeoisie. Rome had the Patricians and Plebians. India has/had five classes: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Sudras, Pariah. So which measure are you going to use? You cite certain distinguishing characteristics. Yet can you say that these are universal? Is the lower class of today the same as 50 years ago-100-1000? Or, of these characteristics, do they hold true for the lower class in North Korea as they do here? Or in Europe? Or Mexico? The slide from measure to "group" is subtle, and the Marxists use it everywhere.

You know-there's something almost counterfactual about this. We simply do not know. We can speculate, but the speculation will be as wild from one person to another, because there is not a single bit of evidence we can use to form a hypothesis. We just have to guess, or commit anthropomorphism. To actually base any policy on an "idea" posited in this type of environment is lunacy.

I myself am not married, so I can not speak from personal experience. My father, however, is currently going through the process of a divorce. I can tell you, from a child's perspective (the first divorce was between my father and mother when I was 6. This second is between him and my step-mother, a 17 year marriage) that divorce is a very difficult concept to grasp. Especially the younger they are, children form a worldly conception of love from their parents; your marriage, in effect, is a real-world representation of the abstraction "love". To see that and have that in your mind is a very powerful thing. The loss, then, of the physical manifestation of love can be very damaging to a child. At the same time, the child wants (or will want when they mature) what is best for their parents. It took me a long time to realize that my father divorcing my mother was a good thing, in that his pursuance of his own self-interest would in the long-run be what I wanted of him. The last thing your child wants is for you to be forced to be unhappy. I think the best approach is just to be honest and open, even about things like the counseling. More importantly, give it your all to revitalize your relationship. Everybody has their slumps-every relationship its ups and downs. From your children's perspective, you being gone a few times a week to a counselor or lawyer, but then just living life like normal (sitting down and watching TV, doing the usual routine) send off the message that the relationship, or the concept (love), is not worth fighting for. Try and be romantic, change things up, go out on dates, devote your life and soul to it. Even if it turns out that none of this works, and that divorce is the best route to take, your children will be grateful and better off from the example you would have set.

I would say that unless the people around the property purchased the property as a "group" and are then reselling it, they cannot take the money (though of course, they can demand all they want). It is nothing more than a troll living under a bridge. That being said-my answer is to a hypothetical. As I have stated previously and multiple times, I was discussing things as they are currently. The United States was founded as a society of contract, and its laws and customs are ingrained in such a manner. Igniting the intellectual revolution is the job of the Objectivist .

I never said that they did not have rights. Their rights might not be recognized, but rights are projections of our natural state and as such can not be bestowed or really even "taken away" by anybody. A criminal, remember, forfeits them. How do you know that there is no other way? What ways have you explored? Can you find a historical example supporting your idea? And if you could provide a metaphysical justification for taxes, I would be thrilled to read it.

Hah-hm well I might need your help. It sounds like I am just having a problem explaining myself. What I meant was that property is a natural extension of our right to life-to live, we must have a place within which to live. Yes, property "changes", but it always remains an inviolable part of your self. A border, and a nation, on the other hand, have nothing to do with the right to life, because a "group" or "nation" can not have a right. The border is set and determined by people for the purpose of designating the sphere of legal influence, not to extend its "right to life". This type of distortion of the concept of rights is used in todays society to justify everything from the Palestinian suicide bombers to anti-Muslim immigration advocates in Europe.

In some senses yes and no. The Renaissance had little to do with the Etruscans (especially since they did not even really know of them at the time!). As far as we can tell, Etruscan impact upon Roman culture was profound, but not so much in the philosophical sense. From funeral masks to gladiators, from superb metalworking techniques to the design of the Fasces, Rome borrowed her customs extensively. What is interesting and worth pursuing about the Etruscans is their ever-elusive origin. They are the only non-Indo-European civilization in the area...a population island. There has even been some projections, with the scant evidence available, that the Etruscans were in fact from Asia Minor (modern Turkey), thus adding validity to the myths of the foundations of Rome. Neat stuff . There are a whole host of books, ranging from beginner to scholarly, as well as a slew of articles about these subjects. Some of this information is fascinating. For example, the technology (gears/mechanics) of the Antikythera Machine was in wide-spread use at the time. Greek and Roman engineers/scholars were creating miniature plays out of mechanical gears (think those mechanical German clocks with the figurines that do different things...but on a much larger scale). Cicero, in one of his letters, even talks about mechanical globe devices used for astronomy. Let me know what interests you and I'll try and point you in the right direction .

I don't know who makes that argument, but it is nothing more than Feudalism dressed up.

I see. And how do you define law?

Not for the sake of reducing this to a long tit-for-tat argument, but I almost feel like you were the one BSing. I explained the way in which our current society is structured, as I would expect to describe an apple that had rotted. Doesn't mean I want to eat it. I thought that it might help the OP to clarify the way things are. The world of ought-to-be is not imaginary, floating in the clouds. It is the actual end result of the attempt of Objectivism. But the only way to get there is to know where we are.