tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post7686366977840833613..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Today on the show: Objecting to ObjectivismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53551923153210792472010-06-16T20:08:35.338-05:002010-06-16T20:08:35.338-05:00I have recently become a huge fan of the show and ...I have recently become a huge fan of the show and have been hugely grateful for the direct role the Atheist Experience and the Non Prophets have played in helping me become active in my atheism. This isn't the purpose of my email, I just wanted to get my gratitude out of the way. Thanks!<br /> <br /> I just recently watched the "Objecting to objectivism" episode, and had a small point I wanted to bring up. Something that came up several times during the episode was the idea that in objectivism, there is the assertion that objectivists must all have the same values. However, in all of my readings on objectivism, it appears that objectivism is based almost explicitly on the notion of subjective value and its relationship to objective morality. In fact, the belief in the superiority of capitalism, as it is held by objectivists, is based entirely on subjective value. In those economic terms, for example, if I have 7 chickens and you have 3 cows, and we decide to trade 3 of my chickens for 1 of your cows, that is a transaction that can only occur if we value these resources differently based on the utility they add to our existence, otherwise the transaction would not have taken place at all. There are some values which we all share by virtue of the fact that we are all human beings (ie. valuing life more than death, valuing our property, etc.). I think these particular values are the ones Rand asserts as absolute, and that may just be her overly-dramatic, authoritative way of saying that they are merely common to all humans due to the similar circumstance of existing as conscious beings. It is definitely possible that she was just being unnecessarily black-and-white, as was her usual attitude, especially in her fiction. In the end, though, it seems to me that the point of objectivism is to take into account people's values, whatever they may be, and structure them in a way that best fits the model of a beneficial, objective morality as it pertains to their situation.<br /> <br /> This is not to say I don’t have my qualms with Rand herself. I was completely disgusted by the piece at the end written by her ex-lover, true or not. That kind of authoritarian nonsense is unfortunately common for most "Randroids." Also, her loose justification of infidelity is something that I take big issue with. I never cared much to look at the life of Ayn Rand herself, it just seemed that idea was inaccurately represented. Thanks for reading this, and I hope to hear back nightman2112https://www.blogger.com/profile/06116700138758928177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89410927231246501722009-07-17T12:12:46.859-05:002009-07-17T12:12:46.859-05:00Cracked has a flowchart explaining how to succeed ...Cracked has a <a href="http://www.cracked.com/funny-304-ayn-rand/" rel="nofollow">flowchart</a> explaining how to succeed as an Ayn Rand character.arensbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15251547886605570242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72423387022992865942009-07-08T23:26:36.835-05:002009-07-08T23:26:36.835-05:00First of all, I should say that I am a huge fan of...First of all, I should say that I am a huge fan of the Atheist Experience, and that I feel a bit torn between my admiration for your work there and my disappointment for what I think is an extremely inaccurate understanding of Objectivism on this particular episode.<br /><br />I have the rare advantage of being someone who listened to "Objecting to Objectivism" prior to reading any of Ayn Rand's works -- and I ate it up, based on what sophomoric smears about her I had heard elsewhere. <br /><br />A classmate of mine urged me this past April to give Rand an honest, scholarly reading, and I have since read The Virtue of Selfishness, For the New Intellectual, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and Atlas Shrugged, as well as Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (by far the best book for a comprehensive understanding of Objectivism.) Next on my list are: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Romantic Manifesto, and Fountainhead.<br /><br />I decided to give this episode a fair second listening, for a before-and-after sort of comparison, and I found myself completely overwhelmed by what I can only compare to the feeling I get when I hear a theist say, "Well if you're an atheist, why aren't you killin' people?" or the headache I suffered while watching Bill O'Reilly attempting to pull the rug out from under Richard Dawkins' atheism with the level of analysis we've come to expect from him.<br /><br />I obviously can't deconstruct the entire episode here, but I think it would be a massive disservice to anyone reading this if I did not recommend a thorough and critical reading of Rand's non-fiction before spreading any Fox News-quality memes about what she did and did not think to people who now probably won’t bother to read it themselves. It is far superior to her fiction in presenting clearly exactly what she thought, and why. The AE episode aside -- simply reading this blog post and its comments has indicated to me that you have not yet done so. As an individual, I don’t care what you do and don’t read before forming an opinion, but when you are in the position of influencing as many people as you do, it is truly unfortunate. <br /><br />Whether you accept her philosophy or not is of no consequence to me. I hesitate ever to become a mouthpiece for such things. I only regret the fact that you and thousands of listeners unfamiliar to Rand's serious and meticulous treatments of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics, etc., now have a Cliff's Notes interpretation of a rather intricate and intellectually demanding, rationally cohesive philosophical system. <br /><br />All the best with the show, though, truly. You guys do an amazing job, and I have learned something new from each episode. Keep it up.Adam Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806368251589923143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87904166939632825072008-11-28T21:23:00.000-06:002008-11-28T21:23:00.000-06:00It stinks to come across discussions like these th...It stinks to come across discussions like these three months after they happened. I came across this show while searching for podcasts that addressed Objectivism a little while ago, and I was disappointed with what I heard. I think the show's viewers and listeners would have been better served had they had an Objectivist on-air. If anything, just to get an accurate representation of the philosophy. It's one thing to disagree with Objectivism; it's another to misrepresent it. <BR/><BR/>Just in case the hosts or anyone who has come across this blog recently would like to see a "rebuttal" of some of the statements offered on the show, I'm in the middle of writing a quick set of blog posts that address the accuracy and context issues with the AE's presentation of Objectivism. I can't speak for Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff, but I can do the research to look up what they said and compare it to what the hosts offered. And I did. You can find the first of my responses below: <BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/6rq822Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15582845477209516725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8575743392268697152008-09-11T03:05:00.000-05:002008-09-11T03:05:00.000-05:00Response to Quantum Flux:For the record, I recomme...Response to Quantum Flux:<BR/><BR/>For the record, I recommend reading fiction. <BR/><BR/>Putting oneself in those fictional worlds portrayed in literature can be a very illuminating experience--sometimes even a life-changing one. I use myself and my experience with "The Fountainhead" as evidence of that.<BR/><BR/>In regards to your interpretation of Rand's view of capitalism: I know of no evidence which points to that as being a valid interpretation.<BR/><BR/>Capitalism, in Rand's view, allowed a practically endless amount of economic values and products to be produced, made available, and traded amongst men, not "jungle law" where only the best or "fittest" businesses could "survive." Her view of capitalism was not an application of a certain interpretation of Darwinian evolution.<BR/><BR/>I think Rand believed that capitalism could solve a great many of our economic/survival problems because:<BR/><BR/>"The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival . . . .<BR/><BR/>Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind." [Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 17.]<BR/>http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html<BR/><BR/>And capitalism, in her view, was (and is) eminently the system of freedom.<BR/><BR/>I find your views on soc. sec. odd (to put it nicely).Rod.Inductionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16343170953954558275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83533387926462119382008-09-11T01:05:00.000-05:002008-09-11T01:05:00.000-05:00It is my belief that Ayn Rand thought Capitalism s...It is my belief that Ayn Rand thought Capitalism solves everything because nature works on a survival of the fittest basis. Businesses go bankrupt just like species go extinct and some business monopolize when they have the demand for their supply. When the government runs a business it usually is at a significant loss of profit at taxpayer expense, and hence socialism and communism don't work.<BR/><BR/>I think, however, that socialism succeeds whenever there is an ecconomic expansion or a boom in population or is that just social security. Anyhow, people need to die off in order for social security to remain stable, none of this living too long stuff. Either that or the social security taxes will need to be raised on the workers or the retirement age needs to be raised like in Cuba.Quantum_Fluxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09383025356536602044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-15844933121249890602008-09-11T00:45:00.000-05:002008-09-11T00:45:00.000-05:00I think Ayn Rand's Objectivism Philosophy is brill...I think Ayn Rand's Objectivism Philosophy is brilliant. Reason is the only absolute. It's a sad thing that her fiction books have a cult following though. I don't recommend reading fiction at all! These Rand cultists would do themselves a service by reading math and physics books instead of reading the same fiction books repeatedly. To read fiction you might as well be reading the Bible or the Koran or something dumb.Quantum_Fluxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09383025356536602044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20653862421457911942008-09-04T11:11:00.000-05:002008-09-04T11:11:00.000-05:00Coreyd:Maybe this will help.Consider the relations...Coreyd:<BR/><BR/>Maybe this will help.<BR/><BR/>Consider the relationship between values and physical force:<BR/><BR/>"Force invalidates and paralyzes a man’s judgment, demanding that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent. A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering one’s mind, is not a value to anyone; the forcibly mindless can neither judge nor choose nor value."<BR/>[“What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 23<BR/>http://aynrandlexicon.org/lexicon/physicalforce.html]<BR/><BR/>In Rand's view, the use (or threat) of physical force destroys the ability of value-pursuit for the victim (and the initiator of force). From this, I infer that morality and ethics are also useless as guides, and thus no longer apply.<BR/><BR/>This doesn't seem to be a case of an "emergency," that she refers to in most of "The Ethics of Emergencies." So I think there's evidence within Rand's works which suggest such a distinction.<BR/><BR/>Also, while discussing the distinction in emergencies, Smith puts in a footnote:<BR/><BR/>"This [emergency] distinction is suggested by Rand's discussion in 'The Ethics of Emergencies,' pp. 54-55, and was brought to my attention by Leonard Peikoff in a very helpful discussion of these issues."<BR/><BR/>So I think Smith's view is the correct interpretation of Rand on this issue. If you think she's mistaken about ethics not applying to a certain kind of emergency, you'll have to show how morality can be used in "metaphysical emergencies" like with force-wielders (i.e. show why there's no basis for the distinction). Or simply come up with an entirely new interpretation.Rod.Inductionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16343170953954558275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81832901005409716722008-09-03T22:27:00.000-05:002008-09-03T22:27:00.000-05:00Roderick: I looked up the section on emergencies i...Roderick: I looked up the section on emergencies in the Ayn Rand Lexicon and, even though I have yet to read Smith's book, I have to say that her statements don't quite fit with Rand's. Of course which ideas are correct is another issue entirely, right now I just want to determine which is the correct interpretation of what Rand was saying.<BR/><BR/>This is a quote that I took from the Ayn Rand Lexicon.<BR/>"An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible...By its nature, an emergency situation is temporary; if it were to last, men would perish."<BR/><BR/>She defines an emergency not only as a metaphysical emergency, but also by the fact that it is temporary. However she does not say that in these emergencies ethics do not apply. It is only a different application of the same basic principles. If ethics did not apply then there would be values and therefore no reason to choose any action over any other. This is not what she is saying.CoreyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330201747668156004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47633608338956605052008-09-03T22:03:00.000-05:002008-09-03T22:03:00.000-05:00anon7-coreyd-roderick-randroids:What ever shall I ...anon7-coreyd-roderick-randroids:<BR/><BR/>What ever shall I do without the “corrections” provided so charitably by your real fine examples of arrogant, unsolicited preaching? How WILL I go on? Oh, mummery! Posh and bother!<BR/><BR/>Have a great day, gentlemen!Kel Dowhowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01777713558741510676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57885793089599634462008-09-03T18:22:00.000-05:002008-09-03T18:22:00.000-05:00Mark Plus:"Objectivists regularly ridicule people ...Mark Plus:<BR/><BR/>"Objectivists regularly ridicule people who want to preserve forests and wetlands. But when you cut down forests and drain coastal wetlands, you make water-related natural disasters worse."<BR/><BR/>Mark, there are certainly irresponsible people who live only in the present and want to cut down all the trees without concern for where wood will come from in the <I>future</I>. And yes, it does seem quite irrational to think and act this way. I don't know much about logging, but have been watching episodes of Ax Men on the History Channel to see how they do it. For a given region, they will only cut down one section of trees, which they will then re-plant. The next season, they will move on to another section. They have so many sections to work with that, for example, today they are cutting down sections that haven't been cut down for over half a century. So while it is certainly irrational to go on cutting sprees, I don't think that's how all logging companies act - at least, not the ones that plan to stay in business.<BR/><BR/>With all of that said, we must remember that value, purpose, and meaning are nonexistent outside the rational mind. There are environmentalists that would lead you to believe that forests are <I>innately</I> of value - a value seemingly divined from the Heavens, <I>completely independent</I> of man's purposes. It should be clear what is wrong with this view - that only a volitional, rational being can create purpose for and derive value from the world. It should also be clear that only a rational being would keep in mind his long-term goals and the goals of those he values, rather than choose to squander his resources as quickly as possible - there's nothing reasonable about being wasteful.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01186004124653419949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86543996051500858222008-09-03T17:50:00.000-05:002008-09-03T17:50:00.000-05:00Coreyd: That makes sense. The issue of "emergenci...Coreyd: That makes sense. The issue of "emergencies" is somewhat difficult, and it would be nice for someone to go into more depth about them.<BR/><BR/>Anon7: I thought the context of my post was clear, but I'll state explicitly that I was referring to "kel dowhower," not Kazim.<BR/><BR/>I disagree with Kazim's interpretation of Objectivism, but he's been respectful (to me, at least, though you may disagree) throughout the comments.<BR/><BR/>Kel, on the other hand, has some issues with Objectivists and finds it necessary to show it, with his insults and nigh-constant sarcasm. <BR/><BR/>This will be the last time I refer to him (Kel), as I think it's best to just ignore guys like him.Rod.Inductionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16343170953954558275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59852578392670953962008-09-03T17:44:00.000-05:002008-09-03T17:44:00.000-05:00Kazim said: "...Anon7 even went so far as to say t...Kazim said: "...Anon7 even went so far as to say that if there is an apple, which initially belongs to neither of us, then he's perfectly justified in using force to make sure I don't get it."<BR/><BR/>Is that what I said? I though I explictly said: it *might* come to fighting over the apple , because you didn't provide any details of the context. I figured you would just make up a set of details as you go along, thus the word "might" was used. For example, if you start the fight, I'm not going to just stand there.<BR/><BR/>For Kazim to say this in anyway means:<BR/>"... he's perfectly justified in using force to make sure I don't get it." --- well, I want to keep this civil, so I will not use the four letter "L" word, but you can make your own mind up on that. <BR/><BR/>Other may use alternative lanaguage as the see appropriate.OjellOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12268473073282925230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-33086345899505037152008-09-03T17:35:00.000-05:002008-09-03T17:35:00.000-05:00Note: After re-reading the posts I'm not sure the ...Note: After re-reading the posts I'm not sure the quote "...don't even waste your time with this guy. He's gone out of his way to insult us..." referred to Kazim; however, I think it still applies to Kazim (but not to the same degree as to the person it was directed at).OjellOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12268473073282925230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60430941727745509942008-09-03T17:29:00.000-05:002008-09-03T17:29:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.OjellOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12268473073282925230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72113025655812291812008-09-03T17:03:00.000-05:002008-09-03T17:03:00.000-05:00Brain: Wow! Ya really got me on that “assuming” t...Brain: Wow! Ya really got me on that “assuming” thing! Wooo-weee! A real “gotcha”! Yuck-yuck. Heh, heh. I don’t think I stated that I cared what the hell you are or believe. “Show me the evidence that Greenspan still claims to follow Objectivism.” Yes sir, mazza! What’s that, some sorta commando prayer? Oh yeah, how silly of me! Your statements are obviously more fact-based than mine! Self-important people are always so bossy---you ever notice that? You may not be an objectivist, but yer sure as arrogant as one. Look, if yer interested in Greenspan, look it up yerself. He was part of Rand’s special little crazy clique---that’s the fact---now it’s up to you (whatever you are) and the Randroids to prove that he had some sort of epiphany and suddenly dropped his Rand worship. Christmas past, present, or future? I haven’t had dinner with him lately---you? Otherwise, you’re just throwing around weak assumptions in an attempt to endlessly continue your objectivist-style masturbatory rants. <BR/><BR/>And remember, were all just compost that’s fading fast---let’s just try and make everyone as comfortable as possible until we fizzle away. Is that too much to ask? Apparently it is for objectivists and other religious zealots.Kel Dowhowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01777713558741510676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81578203706655500792008-09-03T15:52:00.000-05:002008-09-03T15:52:00.000-05:00Brian, don't even waste your time with this guy. ...Brian, don't even waste your time with this guy. He's gone out of his way to insult us, and probably won't care that you personally are not an "Objectivist."<BR/><BR/>If he doesn't want his misinformation and nonsense corrected, and seems content with unjustified attacks, then simply let him be.<BR/><BR/>If Kazim, or someone like him, is still willing to discuss Objectivism (flaws or otherwise), I'd be happy to address them.Rod.Inductionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16343170953954558275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-31577386579972380842008-09-03T15:25:00.000-05:002008-09-03T15:25:00.000-05:00Roderick: I'm not sure I agree with Tara Smith but...Roderick: I'm not sure I agree with Tara Smith but I think I'll read her book and do some contemplation of my own before I come to a definite conclusion on that one.<BR/><BR/>Kel: <BR/>Knowing Ayn Rand does not make Alan Greenspan an Objectivist or an expert on Objectivism the actual recognized experts on the philosophy have also pointed out that Greenspan's actions and words are not consistent with Objectivism. But it doesn't matter because your interpretation doesn't represent his views either.<BR/><BR/>Objectivism is not in any way <BR/>"social-Darwinistic". If you insist on arguing with straw-men then I will leave you to do so. This will be the last time I correct your misrepresentations of Objectivism.CoreyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330201747668156004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66678010209678240412008-09-03T14:41:00.000-05:002008-09-03T14:41:00.000-05:00"Brian: Blah-blah-blahbahdee-blah-blah. Sorry, I’l..."Brian: Blah-blah-blahbahdee-blah-blah. Sorry, I’ll take Greenspan’s interpretation of objectivism any day over some commenter on a blog."<BR/><BR/>Err... ok. I'm not sure how to respond to such blind faith. Why are you even replying to comments if you have interest in what people say? I know Greenspan was into Objectivism back in the day, but does he still claim to be?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"I mean really, he knew her personally and worships her every bit as much as your devout hinny does."<BR/><BR/>You talk in the past tense, and then magically transform it into the present tense. <B>Show me the evidence that Greenspan still claims to follow Objectivism.</B><BR/><BR/>Also note, I'm not an Objectivist. I'm just interested and have started reading some of Rand's work. Nice bad assumption on your part, though.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01186004124653419949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17808075471294104302008-09-03T12:44:00.000-05:002008-09-03T12:44:00.000-05:00Brian: Blah-blah-blahbahdee-blah-blah. Sorry, I’l...Brian: Blah-blah-blahbahdee-blah-blah. Sorry, I’ll take Greenspan’s interpretation of objectivism any day over some commenter on a blog. I mean really, he knew her personally and worships her every bit as much as your devout hinny does.<BR/><BR/>Coreyd: Ditto above.<BR/><BR/>Roderick: Sorry, professor condescension, YOU commented on MY post---not the other way around. <BR/><BR/>Some guy on the show said that Rand was brave for writing about the individual at that period of time---or some crap---I disagree. She became the loony creep she was because the USSR closed down her dad’s liquor store or somethin’---heh, heh. It pissed her off to no end. Anyway, I think this history fits her cheap, loathsome social-Darwinistic “objectivism” better.Kel Dowhowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01777713558741510676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89469006397270400932008-09-03T12:10:00.000-05:002008-09-03T12:10:00.000-05:00"...but there is one statement that I take issue w..."...but there is one statement that I take issue with."<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the catch, coreyd.<BR/><BR/>I didn't properly distinguish between "metaphysical emergencies" and "natural emergencies," a distinction Tara Smith makes in "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics (AYNE)," pp.97-98. She suggests that this distinction is implicit in some of Rand's remarks in the essay "The Ethics of Emergencies," particularly sentences like this:<BR/><BR/>"Rand observes that 'illness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies, they are part of the normal risks of existence." (Smith, AYNE, p. 98; quoting Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, "The Ethics of Emergencies," p. 55)<BR/><BR/>Metaphysical emergencies make human life impossible by introducing elements which a human cannot live in due to his nature, such as a fire or a hurricane (to use my earlier example). It's in this case that morality is inapplicable, because there's simply <B>no time</B> to stop and consider what one's moral code would instruct one to do. In this situation, there's no time to consider how the virtue of honesty will apply to this person's discussion with his wife tonight, for instance, because it's likely that this person will never see his wife again, due to his circumstances. The circumstances of the matter require immediate action, in particular <I>escaping</I> one's doom, not moral contemplation. As Smith puts it, "A metaphysical emergency makes it impossible for a person to abide by morality and survive." (AYNE, p. 97)<BR/><BR/>A person's use of force, like a hold-up man, is a man-made version of a "metaphysical emergency," because his actions also make human life impossible (by rendering the victim's mind and/or body useless as a means to sustain one's life).<BR/><BR/>Morality does apply to what Smith refers to as "natural emergencies" however, and my earlier remark was mistaken. How it applies to such a situation (like a good friend falling ill) would differ from normal conditions, however. Smith gives an example of breaking into a neighbor's vacant house to use their phone (to dial 911) when one's own isn't working, as being justified by such an emergency. Since the emergency isn't an emergency for the neighbors whose property you've violated, however, morality would also counsel paying compensation for any damages. In general, these kinds of emergencies, while threatening to (some of) your values, do not make human life impossible, and thus fall into morality's domain (though while different in its applications).<BR/><BR/>I hope I've made the distinction clear.Rod.Inductionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16343170953954558275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13852537253237950622008-09-03T11:26:00.000-05:002008-09-03T11:26:00.000-05:00Kazim:"Yes yes, you say that murder is "use of for...Kazim:<BR/>"Yes yes, you say that murder is "use of force," but then, so is property; all you've done is defined a specific condition where you're comfortable with using force."<BR/><BR/><I>Initiation</I> of force is prohibited because people have a right to their life and to the product of their own productive effort. I won't go into the justification for that here but you must have read it before if you are as familiar with Rand as you say. Property rights of course all come from the right to the product of your effort. If someone takes your property they are initiating force against you, forcibly taking the product of your effort.<BR/><BR/>Some people make a distinction between material goods as property and land ownership and since you used property lines as an example earlier I will address this argument also. Its true that the land was not created by your effort but it not as if we are drawing arbitrary lines in the sand aqnd forbidding people to cross it. Someone had to make use of the land initially which required work: building houses, farming, etc. And you most likely bought the property using the money that is the product of your effort, it is essentially no different than owning a product made in a factory and the same rights apply.CoreyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330201747668156004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60083999366910269292008-09-02T23:48:00.000-05:002008-09-02T23:48:00.000-05:00Kel: I won't bother to respond to most of that non...Kel: I won't bother to respond to most of that nonsense but I will respond to the most glaring misrepresentation of Objectivism that you made.<BR/><BR/>"I don’t like people who want the rich to rule."<BR/><BR/>If you think that Objectivists want the rich to rule then you have no idea what they actually stand for. I saw this same mistake in the show when they talked about Galt "ruling the world". He never wanted to rule anything let alone the world.CoreyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330201747668156004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13900262378713741842008-09-02T23:43:00.000-05:002008-09-02T23:43:00.000-05:00Roderick I think that you have represented Objecit...Roderick I think that you have represented Objecitivist philosophy extremely well throughout the discussion, but there is one statement that I take issue with.<BR/><BR/>"Once an emergency has been introduced, whether natural (e.g. a hurricane) or man-made (e.g. a hold-up man), morality is useless to you as a guide, according to Objectivism."<BR/><BR/>Rather than reply to this myself I will direct you to a video by an Objectivist that explains it better than I could.<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et9-MG3HviM<BR/>The video is called "An Objectivist on a Lifeboat"<BR/><BR/>Also I will provide a quote from Rand that should shed light on her position.<BR/>"It is important to differentiate between the rules of conduct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence. This does not mean a double standard of morality: the standard and the basic principles remain the same, but their application to either case requires precise definitions."CoreyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330201747668156004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-9413920636137095142008-09-02T16:27:00.000-05:002008-09-02T16:27:00.000-05:00Evidently, "Kel Dowhower" considers me not worthy ...Evidently, "Kel Dowhower" considers me not worthy of debating with. After reading his comments here, the feeling is <I>certainly</I> mutual.Rod.Inductionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16343170953954558275noreply@blogger.com