Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peterson Murder Trial - Legal Injustice

Rate this topic


Free Capitalist
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cole, I have to get tougher on you here. As hard as it may be for you to believe, there's a reason why the American justice system chooses a number of jurors, not one. There's no Platonic "Peterson's guilt" out there, to which you have access to, and are surprised no one else does. There are only two (three) people who know as a 100% fact who killed Laci: one is herself, another one is Scott, and potentially a third party if Scott is innocent. That's it, three people. Unless you're the real murderer you cannot go around saying that Scott's guilt is a metaphysical fact. What you can say is that within the context of what you know of the case, you have no doubt about his guilt, nothing more; yet you make it out as if the case against him is rock solid and there ought to be absolutely no dispute over its validity.

But the fact is that the case against Scott is circumstantial, at its best, even though you would have us believe that nothing more really is needed to provide a conviction (and by the way, do you even know the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence?). Moreover, even that circumstantial evidence is weak, at best, because the jurors themselves cited Scott's unusual behavior in the courtroom, and a personal general dislike of him, de as their primary reason for conviction and the death sentence. Moreover, a death sentence should never be passed upon circumstantial evidence, especially one of the weak kind that we have here.

But the fact that you will not even consider any doubt about this case is my reason for ending the discussion (with you, on this subject, not with the rest). It just seems other factors play into your conviction about Scott's conviction, and they seem to be inappropriate for an objective tribunal of justice. I certainly wouldn't want you a juror for my trial! I'd have the oddest behavior in the world if I knew that people deciding whether I was to live or die were basing their decisions in the way that you have shown to be doing here.

And by the way, it seems you've misunderstood what the jurors meant by 'odd behavior' as their main reason for conviction. What they meant was Scott's behavior during the trial, the stoic and impassive posture and facial expression, which was the powerfully objective evidence that convinced them that he was the murderer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that sickened me about the trial is how wrapped up everyone was with it.

I agree!

Why was it the media turned so much attention to what turned out to be a domestic violence/ murder trial? How was this more important than the dozens of such murders that take place every day in America?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cole, I have to get tougher on you here.

One way you can do that is by responding directly to the issues I have raised, instead of twisting them around or ignoring them all together. For example; I asked how you explain the audio recording of Scott Peterson telling his girlfriend that he knows who killed his wife. You ignored the question. I asked why you think he continually refused to take a polygraph test. You ignored the question. I asked what else you would need, after being shown the evidence of a murder weapon linked to him, to be convinced of his guilt. You ignored the question. I asked you how more factual detail being considered could ever result in a worse understanding of the truth. You ignored the question.

Unless you're the real murderer you cannot go around saying that Scott's guilt is a metaphysical fact.

Please do not drop the context in which the statement was made.

My point was that the basis for the decision of the jury (no matter how irrational it may have been) does not change whether or not he is metaphysically guilty. I used the word "metaphysical" to differentiate between metaphysical guilt and legal guilt- the latter is dependant on the jury's decision. The former, however, is not. We can (and should) discover it using factual evidence. My statements apply regardless of whether Scott Peterson is guilty or not.

But the fact is that the case against Scott is circumstantial, at its best, even though you would have us believe that nothing more really is needed to provide a conviction (and by the way, do you even know the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence?).

First of all, I never mentioned anything about circumstantial vs. direct evidence, so I don't know why you'd think that I "would have you believe that nothing more [than circumstantial evidence is] really needed to prove a conviction." I'd like to see you try to quote me from when I said that nothing more than circumstantial evidence is needed to prove a conviction. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Second of all, I never mentioned the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence, so I don't know why you'd think that I don't know the true difference between the two terms. I'd like to see you try to quote me from when I inaccurately used the words "circumstantial evidence" or "direct evidence." Please do not make petty attempts to make me look unintelligent when they are not based in reality.

Finally, the case against Scott was not entirely circumstantial. The evidence used to prove the fact that he was at the scene of the crime at the time it took place was direct evidence. The evidence used to prove the fact that he possessed murder weapons as consistent with the nature of this crime was direct evidence. The evidence used to prove the fact that he had multiple motives for the crime was direct evidence.

Moreover, even that circumstantial evidence is weak, at best, because the jurors themselves cited Scott's unusual behavior in the courtroom, and a personal general dislike of him, de as their primary reason for conviction and the death sentence.

Again- the basis for the jury's conviction is irrelevent to whether or not he is metaphysically guilty.

Moreover, a death sentence should never be passed upon circumstantial evidence, especially one of the weak kind that we have here.

The most important facts in the prosecution's case were proven using direct evidence. It would seem to me that there was plenty of strong evidence in support of his guilt.

But the fact that you will not even consider any doubt about this case is my reason for ending the discussion (with you, on this subject, not with the rest).

I'd like to see you quote me from when I said something that would imply that I would not even consider any doubt about the case. Please do not put words in my mouth.

It just seems other factors play into your conviction about Scott's conviction, and they seem to be inappropriate for an objective tribunal of justice.

I'd like to see you quote me from when I said something that would imply that other factors play into my opinion on Scott's guilt. I've been the one here referencing evidence used in the case as the premise for my conclusion on his guilt. Please do not put words in my mouth.

I certainly wouldn't want you a juror for my trial!

I certainly wouldn't want you as a partner on my debate team.

I'd have the oddest behavior in the world if I knew that people deciding whether I was to live or die were basing their decisions in the way that you have shown to be doing here.

Specifically, which of my premises do you feel are inaccurate? It won't help either of us if you make empty accusations without giving any specific examples of your point, and how it's relevant to this discussion.

And by the way, it seems you've misunderstood what the jurors meant by 'odd behavior' as their main reason for conviction. What they meant was Scott's behavior during the trial, the stoic and impassive posture and facial expression, which was the powerfully objective evidence that convinced them that he was the murderer.

I'm not arguing in support of the basis in which the jurors' made their decision. It may very well have been subjectively made, which would entail a mistrial. What I am arguing is Scott's metaphysical guilt.

Again- It's unfortunate for the both of us that you felt the need to twist around and ignore my arguments, and then eventually cop out of the discussion all together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with pretty much everything Cole has said but here are my thoughts on this thread:

1) I'm shocked that there are Objectivists that dispute Peterson's guilt. A more guilty man since OJ has not existed.

2) Concerning the referrence to the movie "12 Guilty Men". When I was younger I liked that movie but I just recently rewatched it with a more analytical eye. That movie is philosophically *terrible*. It stands for epistemological subjectivism. The point of that movie is that you can never know anything with certainty. It reminded me of Kirasawa's "Roshomon". I would not use "12 Angry Men" to bolster any legal or philosophical argument.

3) Concerning the unborn fetus. The double murder charge was wrong as we all know. This is a bad development in American jurisprudence, ie considering an unborn fetus as a "person." Two things here: first, given the rise of Christian fundamentalism, is this trend really so suprising? Second, the erroneous double murder charge is irrelevant to Peterson's guilt of killing his wife. Don't be sidetracked by it.

4) Circumstantial Evidence - When I was in law school, prosecutors would tell us all the time that many cases are decided based on circumstantial evidence. Not every murder will have a smoking gun. Many times all you have is circumstantial evidence. But so what? On this board, we should all know the potency of the laws of logic. Iron clad cases can be made with "just" circumstantial evidence. As was the case with Peterson.

5) I'm incredulous about how those here have commented on the lack of evidence implicating Peterson. Please. The body is found where he was fishing, the call to his girlfriend, the suitcase full of hair dye, survival gear and money, etc, etc. As I said, a more guilty person is hard to imagine. In fact, I looked at the whole case differently. The major media was cheerleading for his innocence!! Dany Abrams was his biggest fan so to speak and kept saying for close to a year how the prosecution didn't make its case. In fact, I saw definite similarities to the OJ case. All the media "pundits" were united in their attack on *objectivity* as such. In fact, if I knew nothing else but that nearly every law professor and defense attorney saw him as "not guilty", then on that basis alone, having gone through 3 years of law school, I would be inclined to convict him. (I'm being humorous here but you should get my point.)

6) Lack of Exculpatory Evidence - Now I anticipate some of you saying that you can't prove a negative. But I don't think that applies here. In every criminal case, one of the chief ways to assure the innocence (or more techically, the lack of guilt) of the defendent is to offer exculpatory evidence. Not one shred of exculpatory evidence was offered in this case. Not one. Just like the OJ case, all the defense could do was to show the "flaws" in the Prosecutors case. (Actually in the OJ case, Cockeran had the audacity to suggest "Columbian drug lords" as a possibility) But if Peterson was innocent then that would by definition mean that someone else was guilty. Well? Where was that evidence? And don't tell me that's not relevant. It damn well is. If a defense attorney can show no evidence pointing in someone else's direction, that in itself suggests guilt. Combine that with everything else and as I said, a guiltier man is hard to imagine.

7) I will lose no sleep because of the death penalty being assigned to Peterson. In fact, its proof that the system is not totally corrupted which is what I would have felt had he been aquited.

8) The jury has said some stupid things. But they're not philosophers. I still think they approached the case rationally, taking the whole year long process into account.

9) I too was sick of the coverage. But much like Peikoff said in his Ford Hall Forum speech in '96, this was a good case for philosophical detection and I think it was much healthier than the OJ fiasco.

10) Lastly but not leastly, I find it so interesting to see the various opinions of different Objectivists. We all share the same premises but much like the divergent responses to art and movies, people are all over the map here. As I said, its interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It stands for epistemological subjectivism. The point of that movie is that you can never know anything with certainty.

That is untrue. You may want to read what Peikoff has to say about certainty on the OPAR chapter "Reason". The important point there is that when you integrate the totality of your knowledge, a proposition is certain when there is nothing to suggest that an alternative might be true. Unlike rationalist accounts of certainty, the Objectivist account allows you to be certain and yet be mistaken (because you lack relevant evidence). The fact that man is a volitional being does make certainty regarding human actions difficult to attain -- the argument "But why else would he..." doesn't have the same force as the "why else" argument has when used on non-volitional entities.

Second, the erroneous double murder charge is irrelevant to Peterson's guilt of killing his wife. Don't be sidetracked by it.
That is true, but the double murder charge is essential to the state's power to kill Peterson: without it, there could be no execution. I know that from a legal POV this is incoherent, but because of the problem of error (cf. the 68% error rate figure), either the standard of proof needs to be higher for capital punishment, or something needs to be done about the degradation of the standard of proof to preponderance of evidence in criminal cases.

Not every murder will have a smoking gun. Many times all you have is circumstantial evidence. But so what?

But you also know that not every murder must result in a conviction. The fact that you have only circumstantial evidence is not the central issue, though it is relevant. What matters is how compelling the evidence is. Circumstantial evidence is by nature weaker, because it is open to multiple interpretations.

Iron clad cases can be made with "just" circumstantial evidence. As was the case with Peterson.
So which allegations do you consider to be incontrovertable proof that Peterson murdered his wife? Bearing in mind the requirement that evidence cannot be interpreted as supporting guilt if it is reasonable to assign it an innocent interpretation, does possession of hair dye prove that a person is trying to hide from the law? Given the currents and tides in the bay, what is the scientific probability that the body could have drifted to that location from, some other location say 10 miles away? Or suppose she had been murdered by a secret lover and the body had been hauled and dumped in the bay: where would be a good spot to dump the body from the shore? Why did 51 prior searches of the area fail to reveal the body? The standard of proof defined as "certainty" demands that alternative explanations be absolutely excluded, not just rendered "unlikely". Evidence of financial problems is completely irrelevant, anf only serves to support the feeling that the prosecution has a lot of evidence. Some of the evidence does make the "probable" case for guilt, but probable is not good enough.

6) Lack of Exculpatory Evidence

...

But if Peterson was innocent then that would by definition mean that someone else was guilty. Well? Where was that evidence?

As you know, in the US the defense is not required to prove innocence. The defense is not required to find the guilty person. The one question in my mind is how the defense addressed the factual allegations made by the prosecution. But this doesn't fascinate me enough to pay for a copy of the trial transcript (if I could get one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What matters is how compelling the evidence is. Circumstantial evidence is by nature weaker, because it is open to multiple interpretations.

Questions for anyone:

1. What kinds of evidence are there in criminal trials, and what essential distinguishing characteristics set them off from each other?

2. What is circumstantial evidence, and why is it supposedly weaker than other kinds? Are the other kinds infallible or merely "stronger"?

I ask these questions partly because I am a perpetual student of history, and the parallels between history, as a discipline, and trial law, as a discipline, are striking. (Marc Bloc, Historian's Craft, discusses this analogy.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the double murder charge is essential to the state's power to kill Peterson: without it, there could be no execution. I know that from a legal POV this is incoherent, but because of the problem of error (cf. the 68% error rate figure), either the standard of proof needs to be higher for capital punishment, or something needs to be done about the degradation of the standard of proof to preponderance of evidence in criminal cases.

Regardless of whether you consider this a double murder, regarding the unborn fetus as a person, or a single murder, killing your pregnant wife is a more savage crime than killing a woman who is not pregnant. Capital punishment is reserved for the most distgusting and unthinkable crimes, and the circumstances of this particular case qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether you consider this a double murder, regarding the unborn fetus as a person, or a single murder, killing your pregnant wife is a more savage crime than killing a woman who is not pregnant.  Capital punishment is reserved for the most distgusting and unthinkable crimes, and the circumstances of this particular case qualify.

No, that is a subjective and emotional view of punishment. In fact, I cannot imagine any rational defense of the position that murdering a pregnant person is worse than killing a non-pregnant person, or that killing a woman is worse than killing a man. Are you seriously arguing that willfully killing a person is not absolutely the ultimate in disgusting savage behavior? If you want to argue that all cases of homicide should be rewarded with execution, you can procede. Otherwise, if we are to restrict the death penalty to just the worst cases, then killing a pregnant woman, even your wife, if far from the worst thing you can do. Torturing a person and killing them is vastly worse. Killing an old defenseless woman is the worst thing you can do. De gustibus, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cole,

Let's get into details here, since you insist and are accusing me of evading your statements. Because I don't want to spend 15 hours a day on this thread, let's use a single resource for the facts of the case, the link you posted: CourtTV's website for the Peterson trial evidence.

I asked how you explain the audio recording of Scott Peterson telling his girlfriend that he knows who killed his wife
Where, on the website, do you find support for this claim?

I asked why you think he continually refused to take a polygraph test. You ignored the question.
What do polygraph tests prove?

I asked what else you would need, after being shown the evidence of a murder weapon linked to him, to be convinced of his guilt.
Where, on that website, is there any mention of any murder weapon?

You claim that the case against Peterson was "not entirely circumstantial". I wonder what you think about the following.

From CNN.com:

Jurors said Scott Peterson's lack of emotion was one reason for their decisions, first to find him guilty and then to recommend he be sentenced to death.

"If Scott Peterson had lost his wife and baby and was innocent, and was now on trial for his life, this would be a man who was emotionally devastated, and it would show on his face," Johnson said.

"But they looked across that courtroom and they saw another stone-faced, emotionless, sometimes even happy Scott Peterson. That complete disconnect was what destroyed Scott Peterson. Ultimately, the strongest piece of evidence against Scott was Scott himself."

Hmm really? We have Cole here saying otherwise. He says there was actual, real, strong evidence that existed apart from Peterson's behavior.

From juror statements #1:

Beratlis and two other jurors who spoke to the press said they based their decisions on hundreds of small "puzzle pieces" of circumstantial evidence
Hmm.. where was it that I heard claims to the contrary?

From juror statements #2:

Jury foreman Steve Cardosi said there were "thousands of little moments" that added up to a guilty verdict.
(implying that there was no one big moment)

Looks like facts are against you, Cole. Still persisting in your claims, you then proceed to support the claim that the Peterson trial had direct evidence by saying:

The evidence used to prove the fact that he was at the scene of the crime at the time it took place was direct evidence.
The only thing the website contains about Scott's location is this, from the Fishing Alibi section: "The remains of Laci Peterson and her fetus were found 1.25 miles from the part of bay where Peterson claimed to be fishing." Is that what you consider being 'at the scene of the crime at the time it took place'? That's your direct evidence?

The evidence used to prove the fact that he possessed murder weapons as consistent with the nature of this crime was direct evidence.
Please point me to where on the site the murder weapon is discussed, and described as direct evidence. Actually, don't trouble yourself, because this quote from NYTimes may help: "The cause of Mrs. Peterson's death was never determined, nor was any murder weapon found."

--

Look. The debate of Scott Peterson's guilt or innocence is interesting, but ultimately not exactly what I started this thread for in the first place. My whole intention here was not to debate about his guilt, but to point everyone's attention to the fact that Peterson's jurors believe Scott to have been his own greatest indictment, specifically pointing to his behavior in the courtroom. They don't have anything stronger than that, by their own admission, but they don't need it, it is said, because his behavior is all that was ultimately necessary for them. All of the country's intellectual pundits on TV passed over this incredible justification for a verdict, and no one voiced opposition to the objectivity of this so-called evidence, and depravity of sentencing a man to die for this reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argive,

In what way is "12 Angry Men" a movie about subjectivism? To me it is a great movie about heroic independence of thought, and direct implications of this virtue for an innocent man, almost sentenced to die by people too lazy, or too angry, to question the "obviousness" of his guilt.

I don't see what's wrong with using this movie to bolster my philosophical or legal arguments, because I think it's one of the greatest trial movies ever made, with an inspiring philosophical theme, and a powerful moral lesson for all to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why it wouldn't be an objective piece of evidence against the defendant.  Why shouldn't the fact that Scott Peterson sold Laci's car right after she went missing be considered in the case? Why shouldn't the fact that, after saying he was going to put up "Missing" posters, Scott Peterson actually drove to a mall parking lot, sat there for 45 minutes, and then threw the posters away- be considered in the case? Why shouldn't the fact that, after the discovery of the bodies, he immediately changed his appearance, rented a car in his mother's name, withdrawl large sums of cash, and then made a run for the border- be considered in the case? This behavior is all consistent with somebody who committed the crime, and should be evaluated. How could more factual details being considered ever result in a worse understanding of the truth?

As I said, this evidence alone does not prove his guilt. It's part of a larger case. I don't see how the consideration of this evidence would create something other than "an objective practice of justice."

I just reread this and it is excellent. This is the point that I wanted to make. Taken seperately, any one of the indirect pieces of evidence against Peterson could be questioned as coincedental or irrelevant. But taken in total. Give me a ****ing break. I have tremendous respect for both Free Capitalist and Dave Odden. In fact, if I just read their posts from this thread, I would think they were mentally challanged and not possessors of the first rate intellects that they have. But I'm dumbfounded by their views. Read Cole's description of the factually proven behavior of Peterson again and dare tell me that these aren't the actions of a guilty man.

I say this right now. I would volunteer to throw the switch of the electric chair for Peterson's execution and not lose a second of sleep.

If I wanted and evaluation of history, I would consult Free Capitalist before most historians. If I wanted an evaluation or explanation of the essence of language and linguistics, I would consult Dave Odden.

But if I wanted to field a jury for a criminal case, I wouldn't want them within a hundred miles of the courtroom. No offense, but I can get a thousand liberal law professors or defense attorneys to say the same nonsense.

As for 12 Angry Men, I made a mistake. I meant to say that the film stands for skepticism, not subjectivism. And yes, Fonda does expose the mental lethargy of the other 11 jurists, but he says repeatedly that no one can ever really know. Taken to the end, he argued for total skepticism and the destruction of objectivity. That was not a great movie, allthough it was very well acted.

Sorry if I insulted anyone but this thread has given my both a stomach ache and a head ache, not to mention gas pains.

<FC: Please don't curse in public forums. Get some Advil. :)>

Edited by Free Capitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Explaining why the jurors recommended the death penalty for Scott Peterson, FoxNews writes:

"No single piece of evidence led Scott Peterson's 12 jurors to decide he killed his pregnant wife nearly two years ago, but several said they were struck by Peterson's stoic nature."

So let me get the straight. We have no conclusive evidence of the guy's guilt, but we don't like how sits during his own trial for life, so we'll kill him anyway, just to be sure.:angry:

I wonder if anyone of those jurors has ever heard of the phrase "guilty beyond reasonable doubt". :dough:

Peterson may have done some disagreeable things, like not testify for his own innocence, and there is some circumstantial evidence that may or may not tie him to the murder, but there is room for doubt. Our justice system was for the first time in history built upon the principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and there is room for doubt in this case, so he has to go free. Or, if the circumstantial evidence is that strong and the room for doubt is there but a very small one, slap a few years of prison on him. But using personal dislike of the defendant as the primary cause for deciding his guilt, and moreover, sentencing this man to die, when basing his guilt on tremendously strong and objective premises such as this, is depressing.

And the fact that of the big pundits in the media (such as O'Reilly) no one has expressed outrage about the reasons behind the verdict, or even observed there's a problem, is just ... unbelievable.:(

Tough questions. Interesting responses. It's essential to realise that there's no 'universal' definition of 'common sense' let alone it's source even among hopefully Western minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's essential to realise that there's no 'universal' definition of 'common sense' let alone it's source even among hopefully Western minds.

What is the purpose of your comment -- skepticism?

In this forum, we do have a definition to work with, the description Ayn Rand offers:

"Common sense is a simple and non-self-conscious use of logic." (Ayn Rand Lexicon, p. 77, quoting from a Q and A period after a lecture by Dr. Peikoff.)

Further, it "is a childhood form of reasoning ... But common sense is not enough where theoretical knowledge is required: it can make simple, concrete-bound connections -- it cannot integrate complex issues, or deal with wide abstractions, or forecast the future." (Ayn Rand, "Don't Let it Go," Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 257 hb, 211 pb; also ARL, pp. 77-78.)

Jurors need reason, not merely "common sense." What all qualified jurors need -- whether they are intellectuals or not -- is a legal system that is based on a philosophy of reason, a philosophy that permeates not only the laws themselves, but also the detailed rules of behavior in a courtroom -- e.g., the criteria that jurors should and should not use to reach a verdict or to assign a punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Common sense is a simple and non-self-conscious use of logic."

Back around 1968, the late Jim Davidson (the electrical engineer and inventor who first came up with the idea of tape recording Objectivist lectures) offered us this definition of his own (which complements the above):

"Common sense is reason as applied to fairly well-known phenomena, with small advances, perhaps, into the unknown."

Jim was a brilliant thinker, and a continuing inspiration to those of us who were fortunate enough to know him in his later years. We asked him, once, what Ayn Rand was like in person. He gave a big smile, and said: "A living doll!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the purpose of your comment -- skepticism?

In this forum, we do have a definition to work with, the description Ayn Rand offers:

"Common sense is a simple and non-self-conscious use of logic." (Ayn Rand Lexicon, p. 77, quoting from a Q and A period after a lecture by Dr. Peikoff.)

Further, it "is a childhood form of reasoning ... But common sense is not enough where theoretical knowledge is required: it can make simple, concrete-bound connections -- it cannot integrate complex issues, or deal with wide abstractions, or forecast the future." (Ayn Rand, "Don't Let it Go," Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 257 hb, 211 pb; also ARL, pp. 77-78.)

Jurors need reason, not merely "common sense." What all qualified jurors need -- whether they are intellectuals or not -- is a legal system that is based on a philosophy of reason, a philosophy that permeates not only the laws themselves, but also the detailed rules of behavior in a courtroom -- e.g., the criteria that jurors should and should not use to reach a verdict or to assign a punishment.

We have no quarrel with cognition's efficacy. I must, however, confess to a weakness: At other locations on the internet and in real space people that I have introduced to Aristotelian and Objectivist thought become downright frightened. The internet complaints could have resulted-regardless of the integrity of my arguments and polemic-in violence if I had spoken in a college level classroom. In one instance when I was employed at a world famous nightclub and threw out a few pearls to the staff, the pork chops returned later when a supervisor told me I was to no longer verbalise those thoughts. When employed at the University of Chicago I was brought before a union tribunal and ordered not to express such opinions again. The chief plaintiff (an erstwhile paramour) asked '...s that what you always do? Give people what they ask for?' She was livid.

Objectivism, to us, has wider applications than luxuriating in an adherent's vacuum. We are as eager as you to secure a society-the nation's been here over 200 years-which exalts rational philosophy. Take our sincere word for it; this has become a much more dangerous job than thought when we serendipitously read our first quotation from Ayn Rand. To detractors of Objectivism commensense is a theo-altruistic construct. Our problem is not sacrificing our very being while spreading rational philosophy.

The distinction between 'societies' and 'nations' we'll discuss in a new post due shortly. Thanks for responding to our comment! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...