cleanremarks

I will give you the non-condescending dignity that you have just denied me. I never said "the government." I was referring to Objectivism protecting him, philosophically. No. I believe businessmen have no right to deny someone employment based on race or sex. Obviously, this is a sweeping generalization and you have no evidence to support it. No, because I have already stated that I do not believe in overwhelming majority as a means of legislation. Those people are religious, and have no right to pass legislation based on their religion. By the way,"guilty by association" is one of the many logical fallacies that Ayn Rand detested. The one problem I have with objectivism is that it excludes any act of humanitarianism, if that act doesn't serve oneself. I suppose that I, selfishly, wish for the welfare of all people.

The premises I put forth aren't totalitarianism. The premises I've put forth, when taken to the logical extreme(which I am not doing), are totalitarianism.

I understand and I apologize. I thank you all for caring enough to answer my questions. I don't mean to obscure the logic of this debate with rhetoric. I just have a lot of views that I believe are worthy of clarification.

I am trying to respond to all of your arguments, lol. I have to work and go to school, so it's difficult.

Of course it does. But how can you say that it takes a stand against that, if it protects someone who discriminates against a group of individuals? Doesn't that seem like a bit of a contradiction?

Taking social action against someone's unfair practice of business, and disagreeing with someone's ridiculous claims that a person of a different color is the embodiment of all the (supposed)wrongs of their ancestors is quite another thing. I think viewing them in the same light as a form of discrimination is telling half the truth.

Instead of relishing in my supposed ignorance of your philosophy, why don't you explain WHY I am wrong?

I appreciate your sincere interest. In a way, contrary to a few here labeling me as some ignorant outsider, I have devoted hours upon hours to reading and researching Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I agree with a lot of the things it contains. There are simply a few things that I wanted to address. You're right. I am not suggesting total freedom for all citizens. I am also not suggesting total freedom of the government. I am suggesting that as long as there are soul-less opportunists in the world, there will always be injustice to those with less power. As long as the margins and bar-graphs show "PROFIT," I believe that people will accept or overlook any wrongs they may commit upon others. Most people are not moral in their principles unless there is an angry mob outside their door(figuratively speaking) demanding it. That is why I believe the government has the right to intervene within the economy: to protect those who do not have the means to pick up and move because some CEO refuses to give them a reasonable wage. What right do you have to ask someone to do that? Some towns have ONE factory as the pillar of their livelihood. No one is taking away your right to be an industrialist or to start your own business. I challenge anyone to find a law that suggests one cannot be. Let me save you the trouble--you won't find one. Most users in this forum say the word "altruism" only if they have enough breath to condemn it, shortly after. I am not suggesting that absolute altruism(or absolute objectivism, for that matter) is good. I wish everyone could start their own industry, but it is just not reality. That isn't some pessimistic underestimation of my fellow man--that is stating the unfortunate obvious.

I appreciate all your responses. I enjoy a good debate. Some of you are pointing to the idea that I am promoting a "liberal dictatorship." Meaning, the government is involved in ALL affairs, arbitrarily. I have said nothing like this, nor have I said anything that could be carried toward the idea. A dictatorship is nothing I or anyone would wish, of course. I agree with you all that arbitrary, unchecked power is something to be passionately resisted. However, I do believe that the government has the right to make reasonable laws at the demand of its people. The PEOPLE are the government. The PEOPLE decide what is reasonable, not by overwhelming majority, but by reason and fairness. Any educated adult knows the difference between a fair legislation(i.e. the civil rights movement or minimum wage) and the arbitrary practice of tyranny. Also, I believe the government has the right to tax its citizens. However, consequently, the citizens have a right to demand services from the government because of this(roads, schools, defense, etc.). How would there be things like traffic laws if everyone owned their own roads? It would be as chaotic as driving in the Congo(which I've done). Ultimately, folks, I do not support a philosophy that holds property rights higher than human decency.

"A right is a moral concept that defines and sanctions a man's freedom of action in a social context." -Ayn Rand "The basic way one man can violate the rights of another is by initiating physical force against him." -Ayn Rand How is one initiating physical force against someone by not allowing him to discriminate against a certain group of people? I do not believe the governmnet should dictate what he does with his property. However, I do not believe he has the right to use his property as a means of promoting his prejudice.

I am disagreeing with your logic in reaching that conclusion.

I agree with your argument that logical people would probably boycott the services of such an idiot--as they should. That being said, why is it wrong to create a law that says a man cannot discriminate based on race or color? Wouldn't that proactively dissolve turmoil and, ultimately, benefit everyone?

Wouldn't you consider the government's protection of the individual rights of its people a moral stance? To the first response: I understand and agree that no one has the rights to another's goods and services. But assuming a boycott as a reaction to unreasonable practices seems to be a form of knowledge that is based on faith, not objectivity.

Hello, all. Ayn Rand believes in man's right to build (only) private roads, schools, etc. She believes that the government has no right to demand that a man offer his services equally to all. If a man has the right to refuse service, in his private establishment, to anyone he wishes, then wouldn't this lead to the government defending his "right" to discriminate against others? By "discriminate," I mean to treat others differently on the basis of sex or race. What if this man owns a major highway, but refuses to let black people, hispanics, women, or whoever drive on it?