All have the right to their existence and by extension property. Except those who would forcefully deny it of others. That is the purpose of government; to restrain the tyrants, to force restitution after the initial improper use of force.

So far it's been crickets. I want to see some of the big mouthed anti-Rand people who scroll around this site argue that statement. Where are they? I know they are reading. Come on, lets have the debate.

The book itself is great. I am shocked that I haven't ran across this stuff earlier, but I'm happy they are available now. When you get to a certain point in life, and you figure these things out through living life, you don't need a book to tell you anything. But its nice to read that somebody else came up with these ideas from a different time and place and knowing that in hindsight she was right about everything. For me, it only validates the argument because when she first wrote these books the ideas were theory, and I can see why people would be skeptical. But now they are facts and we have measured results. They cannot be disputed. So I invite the trolls here to engage in conflict. Lets go. Throw out a refute on that statement based on collective mentality.

So far so good. And I loved We The Living. Sad story.

But where are the trolls!!!!!

http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/...

I drive 100 MPH down the road a lot. So my vote should be obvious. And I've never hit anybody. In that regard, I should not be limited to the mental and physical restrictions of those who desire to drive slower. I drive careful or reckless based on the value I have for my vehicle, and my needs at the time. Maybe I have a meeting in Cincinnati at noon then in Columbus at 2 PM, and I promised my wife I'd be home at 5 PM. I will apply the need for speed to execute those obligations according to my skill to achieve all those acts. Because I trust my ability to do all those things I say yes to each engagment. I also say yes knowing I can do the driving, since I wish to avoid catching a plane because of the aggressive TSA restrictions. My limit to these successful fulfillments should not be some pin head who wants to drive 55 MPH in the fast lane thinking they are doing society a favor by keeping traffic backed up on the highway. The poor soul may need pop bottle glasses to drive, and has gout in their knuckles, so they are limited in their physcial ability. They belong in the slow lane with both hands on the wheel. They should not be in my way. There is room for both of us on the highway and I will gladly pass them up at twice their speed, but they don't have a right to keep me from hitting my 2 PM meeting. And they don't have a right to make me late for dinner either back at my home. They don't have a right to force me to get a hotel overnight because my meeting ran late, or because there are too many rules keeping me from getting home in time for bed. So "yes" it is wrong to force people to do good. People should want to do good on their own because they have value for life, their property, and their relationships with others.

If I wreck into someone else at 100 MPH that would cause some serious property damage, so I would only do so if the profit outweighed the risk. If I bring harm to someone else with my action by infringing on the rights of someone else, then I've lost my ability to defend my property by infrining on someone else. But its not for some white knuckled wimp to decide that my speed is too great because it exceeds their limitations.

Now, that should get some discussion going. : ) Come on, where are the liberal nut jobs today? I want to hear more about how great movies like 2001 Space Odyssy is compared to Atlas and what John Galt would or would not have done if locked outside a space ship (its and inside story). Where are the bold proclimations?

I've always found posted speed limits absurd. Sometimes drivers driving too slow are just as much a reckless hazard as a driver speeding in great excess compared to the cars around them. I have always been a firm believer in staying with the flow of traffic. I think those pushing for rules have to have the burden of proof-significant burden of proof- that the rule in actuality makes one safer. I think very few of our laws would survive scrutiny, including speed limit laws.