Tom Robinson

I agree that “Objectivism” as articulated by Ayn Rand “means a particular thing and nothing else.” However, since the word “objectivism” had long been in use before Rand began formally disseminating her philosophy, it is simply not true that the only “objectivism” (capitalized or not) is the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. According to the New Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1958), “In epistemology, the objectivists affirm that truth is objective, i.e. independent of the subject . . . In ethics objectivism teaches the objective character of the values.” Certainly, Rand’s system went far beyond the basics set forth by traditional objectivists to include politics, psychology, art and literary theory. However, this development does not give Rand or her estate special title to “Objectivism” anymore than McDonalds® by virtue of its development as a restaurant giant has a special claim to the word “Hamburger.” Agreed, it would be deceitful to represent a set of ideas that were not Ayn Rand’s as “Ayn Rand’s philosophy.” This is a matter of intellectual honesty. Similarly, a welfare-statist should not call himself a “Jeffersonian-Democrat,” because nothing in Thomas Jefferson’s writings could justify the federal government’s current program of wealth redistribution. However, when it comes to terms that are not necessarily associated with a single person’s thoughts, it is both possible and likely that differing interpretations and definitions will arise. Take “capitalism.” In the view of some, “capitalism” means that most of the means of production are privately owned, while in the view of its fiercest advocates (such as Mises and Rand), capitalism means all of the means of production are privately owned. “Democracy” is another word whose meaning has been transformed, especially in the past century. “Capitalism,” “democracy” and “objectivism” are generic terms that are legally unprotected, i.e. not controlled by a single person or institution. To avoid confusion and promote clarity when dealing with such terms, simply make it clear what you mean by the word when you use it.

My comfort level is not the issue. I merely sought to correct the error in your statement, "'Objectivism' the title refers to the philosophy of Ayn Rand." Since "Objectivism" is not a trademark of Ayn Rand or her estate, there is nothing illegal or even improper about calling oneself a capital "O" Objectivist -- even if one has significant differences with Rand on a number of positions. Example: if I run a restaurant I cannot trademark the word "Hamburger" because it is already in wide generic use. I can, however, sell a meat patty inside a bun under the sign "Tom Robinson’s Hamburgers" (to distinguish mine from "McDonald’s® Hamburgers") or create my own unique version of a meat patty inside a bun and give it a distinctive, non-generic name, say, “Tombrrgrr®.” Thus, you may refer to Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand to distinguish it from other philosophical versions of Objectivism; however, Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, even with a capital letter “O,” is not the only rightful claimant of the appellation.

Barrie Maxwell reports the possibility that Warner Bros. may release the 1949 Rand-scripted, Gary Cooper-Patricia Neal film on DVD next year. I wonder whom they'll tap to do the audio commentary?

Am I the only one who thinks Sarah Michelle Geller is made out of wood?

No, "Objectivism," the capitalized title, does not refer exclusively to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Louis Zukofsky was writing about "Objectivist" poetics three decades before Ayn Rand began the public promotion of her philosophical system. In 1932 he published An“Objectivists” Anthology. Yes, there is only one “Earth,” but there is more than one Objectivism.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Early attempts to define jazz as a music whose chief characteristic was improvisation, for example, turned out to be too restrictive and largely untrue, since composition, arrangement, and ensemble have also been essential components of jazz for most of its history."

. I too am a fan of G&S and Topsy Turvy (by far the best film of 1999). Compare the wit, elegance and metrical craftsmanship of Sir William Gilbert's lyrics with anything being written for the stage today, and you get an immediate sense of how literacy among the educated classes has plummeted in the past century.

Great. So if the non-trademarked Ayn Rand Estate’s version of “Objectivism” refers to the philosophy of Ayn Rand as interpreted by the Ayn Rand Estate, any other non-trademarked versions of Objectivism which does not stem from the Ayn Rand Estate’s non-trademarked version must necessarily refer to some other non-trademarked version of Objectivism not approved by the Ayn Rand Estate. Yes, this clears things up nicely. I can’t imagine that the atheist Rand could have come up with a better analogy herself.

What if those who provide the source of a legal system's finance just don’t feel like financing it anymore? Without money, a court system is impossible. Criminals would walk free just because the super rich didn't want to spend a couple of extra million on the justice system.

Delighted to hear that you do not endorse the use of force against innocents, i.e., those who did not initiate force against another person. If that is your position, then surely you would oppose the use of force against a person who chooses not to speak -- which is a choice that cannot be interpreted as being anything other than non-aggressive.

Dominique, that would be true only if Rand had obtained a trademark on "objectivism" that would exclude all others from use of the appellation "Objectivism" in philosophy. In fact, The New Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1958) -- published before Ayn Rand had begun disseminating "Objectivism" as her philosophy -- defined “’objectivism" as “opposed to ‘subjectivism.’ The conception that the object has its own structure. In epistemology the objectivists affirm that truth is objectivism i.e., independent from the subject.” I understand that this encyclopedia’s definition is not Rand’s, but at the same time it should be understood that Rand did not invent the term “objectivism” and holds no special rights to that term.

If the claim that "Objectivism is a proper noun denoting the philosophy of Ayn Rand and Objectivist, in some contexts, is a registered trademark of the Estate of Ayn Rand," is untrue -- and all indications are such -- then you may wish to re-evaluate your estimation of those posting at "aynrandfans" forum.

Yes. But how does one person's need constitute a claim on the involuntary servitude of another? By comparison, we could say, what if the number of physically able youngsters interested in volunteering was insufficient to repel the invasion of Foreign Power X? Without the labor of those unwilling to fight, defeat of the invader would be impossible. A society would be conquered just because not enough physically qualified kids wanted to spend a couple of years on the battlefield. Now explain the fundamental difference between the draft and the subpoena.

Rand's fiction is ripe with sexual imagery and symbolism. But far from trivializing her prose, the subtle (and not so subtle) allusions to male genitalia, physical intensity of copulation and ecstasy of orgasmic release serve to enrich and enliven her descriptions. Take the opening passage from The Fountainhead: Howard Roark laughed. He stood naked at the edge of a cliff. The lake lay far below him. A frozen explosion of granite burst in flight to the sky over motionless water. The water seemed immovable, the stone flowing. The stone had the stillness of one brief moment in battle when thrust meets thrust and the currents are held in a pause more dynamic than motion. The stone glowed, wet with sunrays. . . His body leaned back against the sky. It was a body of long straight lines and angles, each curve broken into planes. He stood, rigid, his hands hanging at his sides, palms out. He felt his shoulder blades drawn tight together, the curve of his neck, and the weight of the blood in his hands. He felt the wind behind him, in the hollow of his spine. Roark’s nakedness; his pleasure; the hardness of the granite outcropping paralleling the “rigidness” of Roark’s body; the choice of the words “explosion,” “burst,” “flowing” “wet,” “thrust meets thrust” to describe a quiet scene in nature -- all of this lends the unmistakably pungent flavor of sex! to the proceedings. And, keep in mind, we haven’t even got to the phallic imagery of the skyscrapers yet. Now skip ahead to the scene that precedes what Rand famously called the “rape by engraved invitation.” Describing the natural creation of marble, Roark says, the forces involved are "heat and pressure," and then explains, "pressure is a powerful factor -- it can lead to consequences which, once started, cannot be controlled." (Hmm, now what human experience does that resemble?) When Dominique asks about the consequences, Roark’s answer is all but explicit: “The infiltration of foreign elements from the surrounding soil." Only a dunce would miss the double entendre. Take the sexual zest out of Rand’s writing and you get Henry Hazlitt the novelist of Time will Run Back. Great economics but deadly dull fiction.

1. There is no reason why a court system cannot function without coercing peaceful citizens. 2. Since the subpoena is itself an abuse of individual rights, (2) is patently false. 3. Prove that coercion is preferable to good will. And what about the involuntary servitude of military conscription, Jennifer? If destroying the lives and property of innocents is legitimate in time of war, how about a little slavery on behalf of the cause?

If Ayn Rand or the Ayn Rand Institute ever trademarked the name "Objectivism," they never made it publicly known via the familiar “®” or “TM” emblem next to the protected mark. It is hardly plausible that Rand or her estate would have trademark protection but keep it a secret. According to IP attorney Richard Stim, “Failure to put the notice on a registered trademark can greatly reduce the possibility of recovering significant damages if it later becomes necessary to file a lawsuit against an infringer.” Even if she had sought one, it is doubtful Rand could have obtained a trademark for “objectivism,” By the late fifties when Rand began the organized promotion of her philosophy, “objectivism” was already in currency within the philosophical community (although not strictly in the sense that Rand used it), and thus was not unique enough to merit trademark protection. Generic terms are not protectable. By contrast, L. Ron Hubbard was able to trademark the name “Scientology” because the word was not in general use at the time he filed for protection.

“A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent -- his right has been violated.” -- Ayn Rand, "Textbook of Americanism" "Only individual men have the right to decide when or whether they wish to help others; society -- as an organized political system -- has no rights in the matter at all." -- Ayn Rand, "Collectivized Ethics" “Is man a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and his products -- or is he the property of the tribe (the state, the society, the collective) . . . ?” -- Ayn Rand, "What Is Capitalism"

AisA: Do you or do you not think that one has the right to assist in the violation of rights? Robinson: Define “assist.” And be careful here. For example, does a car owner who leaves the ignition key in the vehicle “assist” the car thief? Does a parent who does not do a background check on a baby-sitter “assist” in child molestation? Then answer the question, “Do you or do you not think that one has the right to assist in the invasion of a country?” AisA: The witness was present when the crime was committed and has evidence that can help the police identify the criminal; Robinson: One's possession of something that helps does not create an obligation to help. If that were the case, then the wealthy would have an obligation to donate funds to help law enforcement catch initiators of force. To make your case you will have to prove that the police or prosecutor have a property right to the information in the witness’s head as a result of the witness involuntarily seeing a crime. AisA: that makes the witness a party to the crime. None of this applies to a juror: he was not present when the crime was committed, he does not have evidence that can help the police identify the criminal, and he is a party to the administration of justice, not the crime itself. Robinson: You have not established that being an involuntary “party” to an event creates any obligation to perform an action. Prove by arguing from fundamental axioms that involuntarily witnessing an event creates some debt on the part of the witness to another person or government agency. Keep in mind that you will also have to prove or disprove the idea that a woman who refuses to testify against her rapist is a “party” to the crime and should be jailed if she chooses not to testify in the trial of the suspect. AisA: This is really the essence of the issue, and it shows how you attempt to evade the issue. Robinson: Once you post a valid (non-self-contradictory) case for violating a person’s rights on the grounds that he was a witness to a crime (an unchosen activity), then I will be able to acknowledge it. Since no such case has been presented in this thread, I can hardly be accused of evading it. AisA: I have already explained that it is the army and the police's responsibility to physically fight an invading army or criminals -- and that the private citizen's obligation in each case is only to provide any information or evidence that they may have. Robinson: Again, how does an unchosen, unvolunteered, uncontracted act by the citizen create an obligation to the state or another citizen? If your claim is valid, then rights are purely circumstantial, not inherent in man’s nature as Rand argues. AisA: But, ignoring that explanation, you simply repeat a (false) analogy without mentioning or addressing what I have said about that analogy. Robinson: Your response about the army and police was not an explanation but a datum that adds no strength to your case. Indeed, if it is the “army and the police's responsibility to physically fight an invading army or criminals,” then they should provide full protection to a citizen who is being threatened with loss of liberty for exercising his right not to speak. After all, you have already said in Post #46 (in response to the query “wouldn't the force used to get you to go to court have been an initiation of force?”): “Yes, it is an initiation of force.” Accordingly, the proper response to the initiation of force (coercing a witness) is retaliatory force (putting the coercer in jail). AisA: You completely ignore the obvious distinctions -- which I have now explained several times -- between a witness to a crime and a random citizen. Robinson: You have not shown why random citizens should have full rights to speak (or not to speak) but random witnesses to crimes should not. Once you prove that unchosen, unvolunteered or uncontracted actions by a citizen can create obligations from him to the state, then I will start taking your argument seriously. AisA: Since I know that you are intelligent enough to grasp those distinctions, I am left with only one explanation for your on-going refusal to acknowledge them. Robinson: Since, so far, no valid case has been made for depriving a person who has not initiated force of his rights, I cannot be accused of evading it. AisA: I have already answered this and you have ignored the answer: physically fighting the criminal is the responsibility of the police. Robinson: If fighting those who violate the rights of others is the responsibility of the police, then they should arrest any policeman or prosecutor who threatens with force anyone who himself did not initiate force, i.e. arrest the coercers of witnesses. (See your Post #46) AisA: Anyone who reads this thread will see otherwise. Robinson: In that case, please, please, please solicit their help. Perhaps they’ll provide a better argument than yours. AisA: For instance, one of your first posts on this topic was to make the claim that if we grant subpoena power, we must tolerate mass arrests, warrantless searches and suspension of trial-by-jury. You have offered such arguments repeatedly. Robinson: For this reason: just as a man on the street does not give up his rights not to be incarcerated by the fact that he happens, involuntarily, to be of the same race as the suspect, so a person does not give up his rights by the fact that he has, involuntarily, witnessed a crime. AisA: Evaded, yes. Refuted, no. When I explain repeatedly that physically fighting criminals is the responsibility of the police, and yet you continue to argue that compelling a witness to give testimony means the state can also compel him to physically intervene in crimes, then you are simply evading an argument, not answering it. Robinson: Your argument does not make sense. If "physically fighting criminals is the responsibility of the police," then the police should be the first to come to the aid (“assist”?) a witness who has been threatened with force for sticking to his right not to speak. Since you acknowledged in Post #46 that subpoenas are the initiation of force, then those charged with “physically fighting criminals” should physically fight coercers of witnesses. AisA: Man has an obligation not to violate the rights of others and, as a corollary, an obligation not to help those who do violate the rights of others. You haven't even mentioned this position, let alone refuted it! Robinson: If we have “an obligation not to help those who do violate the rights of others,” then we should withhold our cooperation with any government official or agency that violates the right of a person not to speak, for that clearly is his right. AisA: Once again you try to switch to a different argument or subject. You denied quoting Miss Rand out of context. I showed how her quotation MUST have been out of context. Are you going to admit that or not? Robinson: No switch. Miss Rand was clear on the matter: ““Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.” Now if you can show both that Rand supported the use of subpoenas and provided an argument for subpoenas that was consistent with “The Objectivist Ethics,” then I will cheerfully rescind my references to Rand’s ethics. AisA: Does one have an obligation, chosen or not, not to violate the rights of others? Robinson: Check your premises. There is no such thing as an unchosen obligation. AisA: Now, you want to switch to the issue of who "owns" what and how compelling testimony means it would be okay to use torture, which is another ridiculous non-sequitur and another example of your continued use of the fallacy of the false alternative: namely, the notion that if we allow the state to use any form of force then we must allow it to use all forms of force. Robinson: It is no switch, for any legal conflict between two individuals is ultimately a question of property rights. A murder or rape is a violation of the victim’s property right to her body. A theft of a car is a violation of a victim’s property right to the vehicle he purchased. Forcing a person to speak via subpoena is a violation of a person’s right to his body. Now since you have already acknowledged in Post #46 that subpoenas are the initiation of force, then it is now only a matter of how we wish to deal with that initiation of force. I say, an eye for an eye. If an official jails a witness for ten days for refusing to testify, then the minimum punishment for that offender should be ten days in jail. AisA: A does not have the right to help the criminals by withholding what he knows. Therefore, he cannot invoke a right to remain silent. Robinson: If A does not have the right to remain silent, then force used to compel his testimony would not be initiation of force. Thus, you contradict your statement in Post #46: “Yes, it is an initiation of force.” An argument that contains contradictory premises must have its contradictions reconciled or be declared invalid. AisA: Why won't you answer the question directly so we can be done with this discussion? Do you or do you not think a person has a right to assist in the violation of rights? If one has such a right, then one may withhold evidence. If one does not have such a right, one may not withhold evidence. Robinson: In a debate no one has an obligation to answer leading questions or questions with false premises. See my first response in this post.

In addition to the responses already posted, I should point out that Rand was a tireless advocate of capitalism. Among other things, capitalism implies trade among individuals, the division of labor, and satisfying consumer demand -- all of which are possible only in the context of social interaction.

I fully agree about the changes in Playboy over the past forty years. But in 1964 with no readily available competition, Playboy was in fact quite stimulating to American men in search of female flesh. Furthermore, although mild by today's standards, the nudie pics of 1964 were still designed (in TomL’s inspired phrase) to help heterosexual men “get off” on women in a way that “disintegrates” the object of desire from “the woman who could reflect his own highest values in himself.” So we are left to wonder: would Ayn Rand have consented to appear in a publication if she considered its primary feature (naked gals for prurient minds) immoral or something that Objectivist men in good standing should avert their eyes from?

So, TomL, how would you respond to my post above about Ayn Rand giving a lengthy interview in a magazine whose mission was clearly to help heterosexual men "get off" on pictures of naked women?

AisA: So what? How is this relevant to the issue of whether one has the right to harbor a criminal by remaining silent? Robinson: Since no one has a duty to risk his life on behalf of another, a citizen has no duty to speak if speaking will result in his life being taken or harmed. AisA: I did not respond because it is a preposterous comparison. A subpoena requires a party to a crime to show up once to give evidence at trial, a process that, for the witness, normally takes less than a day. Robinson: The American Heritage Dictionary defines “party” as “A person or group involved in an enterprise.” By this definition, a person who by pure accident happens to see a crime take place in front of his eyes is no more a party to that crime than someone who happens to sit on the jury. Now, if it is your position that Witness A can be made subject to initiatory force due to the actions of Criminal B, then you will have to square this with “The Objectivist Ethics”: “Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.” AisA: A military draft applies to those who are not a party to anything in particular and turns them into 24 hour a day slaves for years. Equating those two things is ridiculous. Robinson: First of all, the duration of involuntary servitude is utterly irrelevant to whether or not it is immoral. If I am morally forbidden to make you my slave for three years, by what right can I make you may slave for a day or an hour? More importantly, you have not offered any essential distinction between the involuntary servitude of the subpoena and the involuntary servitude of the draft. As I have already shown, witnessing a crime is an unbidden, uncontracted, involuntary action. Witnesses are created not by their own choice but by the actions of others. Therefore, following your view, if a witness can incur a duty entirely through the actions of another person (the criminal), then by the same logic a young man can incur a duty to serve his country entirely through the actions of an invading army. If you can declare the witness to be a “party” to a murder, I can say with similar linguistic imprecision that able young men are “parties” to the war being waged in their country. AisA: It is similar to your attempt to equate the "threat" to a witnesses rights with the threat to an accused's rights. The witness need only testify and that is the end of their obligation and participation. The accused has no such option and faces, not a contempt citation and a night in jail, but possibly years in jail. Robinson: Certainly the accused has the right to present evidence on his behalf -- but not if that evidence requires violating the rights of another. If a witness has complete rights over his body (including the right not to speak), then those rights are not surrendered by the actions of another person, in this case, a criminal . The needs of the accused are not an entitlement to the property or labor of others, anymore than the needs of a population for national defense are an entitlement to the labor of 18-year old men. AisA: The witness is a party to a crime (an unwilling party to be sure), whereas at the time of the trial, the accused is not known to be involved at all. Robinson: If, before the trial, the accused is not not known to be involved at all, by what method is it determined that the witness is involved? AisA: You continue to evade the fact that your position amounts to claiming the right to assist criminals. Robinson: Then, by the same (weak) logic, refusing a draft notice amounts to claiming the right to assist an invading army. AisA: None of this in any way justifies the assertion you made that compelling testimony means we must also compel citizens to arrest suspects, stop bank robberies, etc. You do remember saying that, do you not? This is yet another example of you switching to a different argument to evade a point. Robinson: But surely if your position is that forced labor may be used in a courtroom to help an accused man, why would you object to force (or the threat thereof) in order to make bystanders help a woman about to be raped? If, in order to save a defendant from conviction, it is appropriate to punish a witness who refuses to speak, why would it not be appropriate to punish a bystander who did nothing to save a woman from brutal violation? AisA: It also is an example of another fallacy you commit: the fallacy of the false alternative. You claim that allowing the state to use force to compel anything means allowing the state to use force to compel everything. Robinson: This is an example of the Straw Man fallacy. I have never said “allowing the state to use force to compel anything means allowing the state to use force to compel everything.” My position is nothing more or less than what Ayn Rand stated in her “Objectivist Ethics”: “Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.” AisA: You continue to evade the fact that withholding evidence makes you an accomplice and represents a decision to aid the criminal. Robinson: Refuted above. AisA: But you did quote out of context. Are we to believe that when Miss Rand said, "There are no unchosen obligations.", she meant that one is, in fact, not obligated to respect the rights of others? Of course not. Robinson: By refusing to speak, Witness A would be violating Accused B’s rights ONLY if B had ownership over the portion of A’s mind that was relevant to the trial. Now, if you do not believe that A’s mind and body are owned by anyone other than A, then A’s refusal to submit his body to B’s (or the state’s) commands is clearly NOT a violation of B’s rights. On the other hand, if you believe that B (or the state) has property rights in A’s mind, then it follows that not only may they threaten A with jail time, but also B (or the state) would be morally entitled to use torture to extract their property from A’s mind, as A would have no right to withhold it. AisA: Obviously, then, the context of her remark would make it clear that her statement was not intended to negate the fact that one does have an obligation not to violate the rights of others, an obligation whether you chose it or not. Robinson: Since B’s property rights do not include the content of A’s mind, A violates no one’s rights by refusing to speak. AisA: The initiation of force that occurs as far as a witness is concerned is the criminal's action that makes the witness a potential, if unwilling, party to the crime. At that point, the witness has a choice: cooperate with the police or aid the criminal. A subpoena is only necessary if you choose the latter. The state did not initiate the force that put the witness in this position; the criminal did. Robinson: If it is the criminal, not the witness, that initiated force, then retaliatory force should be directed at the former not the latter. Once the state uses force against someone who did not initiate it, then the state becomes the violator of rights (the criminal). Furthermore, if it is your position that a subpoena is the initiation of force, then the witness should be entitled to self-defense. Just as the draft resister is acting morally by evading the involuntary slavery of the draft, a witness would be acting morally by evading the involuntary slavery of a forced testimony. AisA: You ignore the fact that the point of deriving rights and of identifying the non-initiation of force principle is to identify the conditions required for rational men to co-exist. If you interpret or apply those principles in such a fashion that it is impossible for the government to protect rights, you have defeated the entire purpose. Robinson: If you interpret rights and the non-initiation of force principle as a permit to commit involuntary servitude, then you have defeated the entire purpose of individual rights. AisA: Without the power to collect testimony, conduct searches (with warrants) and gather evidence, justice cannot be dispensed and rights cannot be protected. Robinson: With similar fallacious reasoning, the state could declare that without the right to draft millions of men, rights cannot be protected. Any theory that rights are protected by violating the lives or property of some for the benefit of others is self-contradictory and therefore logically invalid. AisA: The result will be a society dominated by mobsters able to intimidate witnesses, able to deter property owners from allowing searches, able to collect protection money from terrified business owners and generally getting away with a great deal of crime. Robinson: My position against intimidating witnesses is consistent. Anyone who threatens a witness with loss of life, property or liberty has committed a rights violation and should be subject to punishment. Therefore, any prosecutor who threatens a non-compliant witness with jail time, should face jail time himself. AisA: Do you suppose that is what Galt would advocate? Robinson: Galt would not advocate protecting rights of some by violating the rights of others, for that position would be self-contradictory. AisA: The justification for compelling testimony is that those parties to the crime who withhold evidence have sided with the criminal and become accessories to his actions. Robinson: Unproven assertion. A witness who refuses to speak may not have sided with the criminal at all but instead may be acting in his rational self-interest to avoid the violent repercussions of giving testimony. AisA: How is not feeding a child not a non-action? Why is withholding food an action, but withholding evidence is not? Robinson: If it is one’s own child, then feeding it is not an unchosen obligation. AisA: Since Jennifer has cleared this up, you may now explain why it is not acceptable for a parent to engage in the non-action of not feeding his child. Robinson: See previous response. AisA: So you are the only one here able to articulate an argument? Robinson: Search the forum archives. If you cannot find other objections to the use of subpoenas, then my posts will have to suffice. AisA: I have no desire to have you banned. Such a thing is not within my power. But I do dislike the fact that your explicit advocacy of Libertarianism on an Objectivist forum implies a sanction and some degree of agreement between the two. Robinson: I cannot respond because I have been officially forbidden to participate in discussions of libertarianism. AisA: Incorrect. You could, properly, be compelled to turn over information about the invading army, just as a witness must tell what they know about a crime, but physically fighting the invading army is a job for the military just as physically fighting criminals is a job for the police. Robinson: Since the contents of an individual’s mind are his by right, no one may morally use force against him in order to gain access to those contents. Ordering a citizen under threat of jail time to render services to the government is a violation of his rights, whether the violation is being done by a draft board or by a court of law. AisA: If you knew for a fact when and where the invasion was going to take place, and then you refused to disclose this information to the military, then you would become an accomplice. Robinson: As explained at length above, the state does not have the right to force anyone to speak.

Yes, a “rights-protecting government” has the right to protect rights but not to violate rights. If we say that government has the right to violate rights in the name of protecting rights, then we are saying that the rights of some may be sacrificed for the sake of others, an utter slap in the face to Objectivist ethics which holds high the essential and universal principle than no force may be used against anyone other than the initiator of force. Thus any use of force against a non-compliant witness, a person who initiated no force but who refuses to speak, is an initiation of force. In fact, not. I am arguing from the principles set forth in “The Objectivist Ethics,” which neither exist in a vacuum nor support the use of force against a non-compliant witness. Since withholding information, like withholding taxes or withholding labor in a military draft, does not constitute the initiation of force, it should not be subject to government scrutiny or punishment. So subpoenas are okay as long as you can file objections to them? Does that make the draft and the income tax okay, since they too allow an appeals/exemption process? If in the end the government overrules your objection, who’s ethically right, you or the government?

Free Capitalist wrote: “A less weaker central government would dissolve the country into anarchy and perrenial civil war, as happened in Ancient Greece, and what the Founders feared might happen again.” Now if the federalists’ strong government was designed to avert civil war, how did the U.S. Civil War occur anyway? Free Capitalist wrote: “As to your second question, a strong argument could be made that all three should be under one federal government, because that avoids mercantile and petty conflicts. However, a strong argument can be made against an excessively large territory for a federal government to control, because that eliminates the idea that different countries can try and achieve the best constitution independently of one another, which they could not if the entire Earth were united under one federal government.” The same “strong” argument against an excessively large territory would apply to the former British colonies of eastern North America. That was precisely the argument of the anti-federalists. Free Capitalist wrote, “In short, my answer is that there is no one principle that says the federal government should be size X, at all times and in all places. When creating such a government, the citizens will have to decide how to balance the need to unify and place barriers on intertestine strife, by creating a powerful central authority, with a government that is geographically larger than it ought to be, by not making the central authority too powerful and too expansive.” And presumably citizens in various regions should have the right to exempt themselves from too powerful a central authority. In other words, the right of secession, which, by the way, Ayn Rand supported.

The social contract theory of government is entirely bogus. Under free market contract law, agreements can only be reached by the explicit and verifiable consent of each individual party to the contract. If I, Tom Robinson, "agreed to abide by the responsibilities of citizenship when (I) decided to remain a citizen after reaching (my) majority," then by the same token, you, Jennifer, must have agreed to a transfer of a portion of your income to the "needy" as the U.S. Congress has directed.