Proposition: America Could Not Have Been Founded By Objectivists

Posted by deleted 10 years, 10 months ago to History
193 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Check out the Founding Fathers... the *sacrifices* they made way outside the reward they got. Many of them were financially ruined. Many had their health ruined. Many never lived to see the rewards which their sacrifices wrought.

George Washington could have been king; had he been an objectivist, he might well have become king, or been the cause of another becoming king.

Here he argues the men of the military into sacrificing value-for-value.
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/was...

" "Gentlemen," said Washington, "you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."

In that single moment of sheer vulnerability, Washington's men were deeply moved, even shamed, and many were quickly in tears, now looking with great affection at this aging man who had led them through so much. Washington read the remainder of the letter, then left without saying another word, realizing their sentiments."

John Galt would never manipulate his men so. Then again, he'd never have "his men". Except in Rand's fictional world where she can induce the emotion of undeserved loyalty from the aether.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ShruginArgentina 10 years, 10 months ago
    "George Washington could have been king; had he been an objectivist, he might well have become king, or been the cause of another becoming king."

    This assertion misepesents the pinciples of Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand).

    No individual who is an "Objectivist" (or lives by "Objectivist" principles) would be willing to become the King of anything, or want anyone else to be King, either.


    I would like to know from whom "in Rand's fictional world" John Galt sought "undeserved loyality."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment deleted.
      • Posted by mccannon01 10 years, 10 months ago
        Interesting, Hiraghm. I've wondered the same thing regarding Atlantis' type of government, if any, and who is really in charge of making decisions concerning all the residents.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Snoogoo 10 years, 10 months ago
    I'm going to state a fact here, this proposition needs some serious supporting statements because the only ones presented contain either contradictions or extremely subjective opinions not substantiated by any level of detailed analysis.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 10 years, 10 months ago
    On the contrary. They so valued the idea of freedom and self-determination without rule from the above that the damages and dangers from following the course were judged worth it by them. This is a very rational decision and full of deepest integrity. In short that certainly did not consider it a sacrifice of a greater value for a lesser one. Saying how one sees things and what one is willing to do to make them so is a call for others to do what they can as well. It is not some kind of evil manipulation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
      I never said Washington's manipulation was evil. The men who died giving us our republic didn't and couldn't live to reap the reward of their efforts; they didn't trade value for value. No objectivist can be willing to die for benefits that only others will receive, and remain objectivist.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 10 months ago
        Hello Hiraghm,
        I do not fully agree with this. There are exceptions. It depends upon your hierarchy of values. If you love someone or something so much that you could not bear to see them or it (a loved one, your nation and/or the freedom of your descendants etc.) perish you may sacrifice your own life willingly. "If one wants to measure the intensity of a particular instance of love, one does so by reference to the hierarchy of values of the person experiencing it. A man may love a woman, yet may rate the neurotic satisfactions of sexual promiscuity higher than her value to him. Another man may love a woman, but may give her up, rating his fear of the disapproval of others (of his family, his friends or any random strangers) higher than her value. *Still another man may risk his life to save the woman he loves, because all his other values would lose meaning without her.* The emotions in these examples are not emotions of the same intensity or dimension. Do not let a James Taggart type of mystic tell you that love is immeasurable."
        http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/love.h...
        To the one sacrificing their life, they may be receiving the satisfaction of knowing their will, will be done and the continuance of something they value more...
        The principle applies universally.
        Respectfully,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
    The founding fathers were all religious.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
      "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people." James Madison
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
        " ecclesiastical establishments "

        "Congress shall make no law respecting an *establishment of religion*."

        "Weapons are not allowed in this establishment".

        Are you seeing a pattern here?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by gonzo309 10 years, 10 months ago
          The establishment of religion has to do with forming or creating a religion. I take the other two to be buildings.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
            Ah, but "establishment" as applied to buildings is derived from "establish"... as many businesses proclaim, "established in 19-whatever".

            Yes, the Founding Fathers were opposed to an American version of the Anglican Church, which became the official state church of England when the Catholic Church dared to tell Henry the 8th, "no".

            So "ecclesiastical establishments" is declaiming official brick and mortar churches, not Christianity.

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
      3."I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." Thomas Jefferson
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
        For every instance or quote you can find, I can find a counter example of where an atheist or self-proclaimed god has done the same or worse.
        Can you say Ghengis Khan, Ceasar, Che, Mao, or Kim Il Sung just to name a few?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 10 months ago
          Your main point may be valid, but some of your details are wrong. (Reply to Robbie53024 on "For every instance or quote you can find, I can find a counter example ... Ghengis Khan, Ceasar, Che, ... ) Genghiz Khan was himself religious and allowed all religions in his reign. Julius Caesar did not consider himself a god. Except for some outliers such as Caligula, Nero, and Commodus, none of the emperors considered themselves anything more than civic leaders in service to the senate. They only used the word "emperor" (imperitor in Latin) in reference to their military status and then only occasionally, along with Pater Patriae (Father of His Country), Pontifex Maximus (great bridge builder) and other legal titles.

          The other half of your evidence rests on the assumption that communism is NOT a religion. It was. It had all of the external evidences and much of the internal structure of a religion.

          All human organizations - especially complex organizations (see the works of Charles Perrow and Ronald Westrum) - follow known patterns. But the students of Heisenberg did not throw bombs into the biergartens used by students of Bohr. At the Solvay Conferences, they argued long into the night - but no one was burned at the stake or tortured for a confession of false belief.

          Philosophy overthrew religion in the 6th century BCE: coinage replaced farm goods as money; philosophy replaced religion; writing replaced public speaking; public processes replaced hereditary kings. Thales, the father of geometry and a founder of philosophy was also an astute businessman. In a thousand years, the Epicureans did not persecute the Peripatetics. The Cyreneans were free to espouse self-interest and self-doubt.

          (And no one was persecuted for having coins of the wrong stamp or weight.)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 10 months ago
            MM, good stuff.
            but 'Philosophy overthrew religion in the 6th .', I did not know you were a romantic! I assume a paper is forthcoming.

            The definition of what is a religion usually is based on the definers views which has often been the belief in a deity, one or more non-humans of superior power. My view is wider like yours, a religion is a set of beliefs that attempt to order and give meaning and value to human efforts. (Just making this up). The word belief is important, if evidence and logic are used it becomes a philosophy. So, communism and and such like are clearly religions. As for gross mass cruelty, altruism is sufficient, the bad are to suffer that the good shall benefit.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
              Then by that definition, Objectivism is "religion."
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 10 months ago
                Distinguish religion / philosophy by the use of evidence and logic.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                  Objectivism relies on the "belief" that another human being will be rational and will decide that their own well being only occurs by respecting the autonomy of other humans. This is clearly contradicted by history. Thus, the entire "philosophy" depends on a "belief" that is not borne out by evidence nor logic (see other discussions of my proposition on the "baddest ass on the block"), thus is a religion.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago
                    Objectivism, being an individual philosophy relies on external reality and the human ability to perceive it and analyze it rationally. It makes no presumption or assumption of other's choices or actions. There's no mysticism in it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                      So how do you counter the "baddest ass on the block" postulate?

                      All Objectivists want to do is keep insisting that mutual respect and autonomy is the only "rational" perspective, despite eons of history that shows that that is not true.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago
                        I haven't read your 'baddest ass on the block' postulate, but I suppose it traces from some of the old Feudal system arguments. I've met a lot of baddest asses in my life. They're generally not, but in the individual''s right for self defense lies the right to acquire the weapons required or hire the help needed. In an Objectivist society, the government has the power to apply the necessary force to the 'baddest ass' if that's required. The Objectivist also has the right to travel and go elsewhere if his rights are ignored or not supported.

                        I repeat that Objectivist DO NOT insist that mutual respect and autonomy is the only 'rational' perspective. They do insist that would be a better world, but we don't live in a la-la land of peace and flowers. We fully expect to have to defend ourselves and our property from those that would loot. Further an Objectivist would never try to force or coerce another into acting or believing anything, though they might try to demonstrate the rightness of their philosophy in the face of the other's failures.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                          OK. The "baddest ass on the block" is that an individual can surmise that they are the only one that matters (total self interest) and can do whatever they want to others. Who will stop them?
                          You seem to believe that it is some communal power, but isn't that contrary to Objectivism? Why would I put my safety and welfare in the hands of a group even if I am part of that group?
                          The Objectivist argument is always that it is only rational that mutual respect and autonomy will result in each person seeing that they cannot violate the "sovereignty" of another. That is poppycock as history is replete with contrary examples.
                          If you want to place your security in the hands of the group, then you are nothing but a collectivist, and not an Objectivist. You can't have it both ways.
                          And since the fundamental tenet is not based on fact, it is only a belief, thus is religion.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago
                            I fail to see where in my comments, you find that I believe in some communal power. I believe in the individual and his right of self defense.

                            For your baddest ass, I may have to obtain bigger weapons, I may have to hire more help, I may have to find like minded individuals and form a government to provide a larger protective force than I can afford on my own, I may even have to shrug the whole situation - but I never have to nor will I put my safety and welfare in the hands of a group nor will I willingly give up my natural individual rights derived from my existence.

                            I've never made a comment that even comes close to suggesting that every human I encounter is going to act rationally and have mutual respect and autonomy and that they won't try to violate my sovereignty. I fully expect and have had to defend my individual rights more times than I have room in these posts to begin to list. More, I recognize those same rights in every other individual I encounter.

                            I realize that you believe you've found some kind of flaw in the rationale and reasoning of AR in describing her philosophy, but I think you have a blind spot when it comes to the exercise of the rights inherent to the philosophy. There is no pacifism in Objectivism as there is in Christianity. I won't turn my cheek and I won't give unto Caesar nor God what someone presumes to tell me is their's instead of mine. Nor will I live my life for another, nor expect another to live their's for me. But if you're unwilling to exercise your individual rights, then you've no business trying to live an Objectivist life.

                            There is a non-aggression or more rightly put, non-initiation of force against another, set of principles based on the concept that each individual has the right of personal property and to enjoy the profits and earnings of his labor and mind. This is all based on rational objective, reasoned and logical observation and understanding of the world around me it's a personal philosophy of life without the need of mysticism or religion to give me reason or permission. There simply is nothing more important to me than my life and what I do with it and I refuse to allow anything or anyone or any super being to interfere with that.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                              What makes you think, from anything that I've presented, that I'm trying to live an "Objectivist life?"

                              You are certainly open to believe what you will and so long as you don't interfere with what I choose to believe, and don't infringe on my liberty, we can live alongside one another in peace. But that is only so long as you continue to choose to not infringe on my liberty. Since you prescribe to no deity, therefore no accounting for your actions other than to your own conscience, I will always have a wary eye. History is replete with those who did not respect their fellow man.
                              Yes, you can point to plenty of those who are among the "faithful" who have committed atrocities, as I can just as well point to those without faith who have committed atrocities. I say that the force of faith has prevented hundreds of times more atrocities than it has ever lead to. I'm sure you'll disagree, since proving a negative is impossible.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                              "In an Objectivist society, the government has the power to apply the necessary force to the 'baddest ass' if that's required."
                              If that's not communal power, what do you call it?
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                      Please clarify and define "individual philosophy". Do you mean a philosophy based upon individualism, or do you mean a philosophy embraced by individuals?

                      All human perception is subjective, not objective. Trying to drive your car down the street based purely upon analysis of reality will result in you being the cause of traffic jams and car accidents. You'd be hated for the time it took for you to analyze the light coming from the traffic light to determine if it was an exact shade of yellow, of pulling out a measuring tape and calculator to ensure that you began slowing at precisely the point at which the law requires... hell, you'd need a radar range finder to ensure you followed traffic at the exact distant the law prescribes for a given speed. And who can calibrate a speedometer on the fly?


                      You perceive the world through the filter of your life experiences and learned preconceptions.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                        "learned preconceptions" ??
                        how are those learned then. There is a objective reality, your senses interact with that reality and there's a way of discerning objective reality. All of science is based on this. Logic and reason move the world forward. Emotionalism has succeeded in killing 100k people in the last century in the name of socialism and another 100k people in the name of environmentalism.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                          Here's an example:

                          I have a terror of doctors and hospitals. It's not rational. It's born of my experiences as a baby with a near-fatal ear infection. I won't elaborate here, as that's not the point.

                          However, my decisions regarding my health care, for example, are colored by my preconceptions, or prejudices, about doctors and hospitals.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago
                        I mean both for clarity and definition, and to be honest I don't see much difference.

                        I disagree with your description of human perception as subjective. I suppose it can be if the individual refuses to apply rational and logical thought and to use his reason to determine the objective reality of what his senses perceive. I doubt that any Objectivist would accept your definition of traffic law requirements as the rational and objective way to drive. I'm not even sure that the requirements written in law can be defined as rational and objective, since they are really up to the subjective analysis of the traffic cop that wants to increase his quota for looting to pay for his salary.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                    it starts with observation
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                      Observation of what? I observe plenty.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                        I did not suggest otherwise.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                          But what were you suggesting needs to start with observation? I'm truly interested. You made the statement, I'm just interested in what you think I need to be observing.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago
                            You need to observe everything around you, then process that information rationally, without relying on your emotions to determine how to react to those observations and don't blind yourself to those you're uncomfortable with or don't know enough about yet. Reason out what of those observations is real and factual.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                            ok. feeling a little beat up tonight-but...
                            none of our knowledge is instinctual. Even the most basic-see, hear, touch-even Helen Keller-touched.
                            Until a human being can integrate their senses with the world, they can't formulate a thought. a fetus sucking its thumb-that is a reflex reaction. Think of a person with no senses-how could they ever formulate a thought about the world? No feedback. You have to be able to interact with the world to formulate thoughts
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                              Well, I hope not from me. I only hope to have meaningful and rational discourse.
                              So, our knowledge is gained through our senses. How does that counter the "BAOTB?" postulate?
                              I still say that history is replete with innumerable examples where one human has subjugated his fellow man. Sometimes this leads to his ultimate downfall (but I would also say, usually at the hands of another BAOTB), but sometimes not. I would also postulate that this philosophy stems directly from the "selfish interest" that is at the core of Objectivism.
                              So, if selfish interest can lead just as reasonably to either mutual respect and autonomy as to BAOTB, then it is irrational to base one's personal security on that foundation. And to believe that selfish interest will result in mutual respect and autonomy is just as much a belief in faith as is a belief in a deity.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago
                                You're conflating self interest with self centeredness and lack of empathy. Psycho-sociopathy exists. That's evident from an Objectivist world view. Self interest alone doesn't lead to BAOTB.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                                • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                                  I agree that self interest alone doesn't lead to BAOTB, but it also does not serve to reject it either. I posit that belief in a final accounting for ones life has the effect of preventing such actions, certainly more so than some belief that only by respecting others will I receive respect in return.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
          hey, I am just sharing the founding father's perspectives. The claim was they were very religious. Not vilifying Christianity-just saying with the founding of our country the separation of church and state was very important and essential to our vitality. In fairness, Adams, Washington and Jefferson all said that religious institutions would also thrive under a separation.
          This is not an atheist vs religious conversation.
          just because someone was atheist and evil does not mean the atheism was fundamental in their evilness. On the other hand, 100s of millions have died in the name of religion or God/gods.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago
            @khalling - I agree completely, AND I don't think it does religion any benefit to associate with gov't. It may sound good on the surface to have gov't supporting you, but then they start to have influence over you. I would not want my church (which consists mostly of atheists and deists) to get heavily associated with gov't.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
              Martin Luther questioned papal authority, 1520 and the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. via his writings on theology. Martin Luther translated the bible to German which gave many more people access to written word and allowed them to develop their own ideas. This spurred the protestant movements in England, Scotland, Germany, France, Holland Italy and Spain(under the Spanish Inquisition) John Calvin-lawyer writer theologian in the Renaissance era in France is forced to flee after an accusation of heresy by senior conservative theologians. 1536 begins the reformation with his writings on faith which were condemned as heretical. Calvin's political theory was to safeguard the rights and freedoms of ordinary people. freeing their minds. To further minimize the misuse of political power, Calvin proposed to divide it among several political institutions like the aristocracy, lower estates, or magistrates in a system of checks and balances (separation of powers). Finally, Calvin taught that if rulers rise up against God they lose their divine right and must be put down. He was making it plain and clear if rulers try to stand between you and your free choice of theology (philosophy) they must be put down. Churches influenced include: Continental Reformed, Presbyterian Congregationalist Reformed, Baptist and Anglican. 1620 . A separatist congregation with beliefs comparable to nonconforming movements (i.e., groups not in communion with the Church of England) led by Robert Browne, John Greenwood and Henry Barrowe. Unlike the Puritan group who maintained their membership in and allegiance to the Church of England, Separatists held that their differences with the Church of England were irreconcilable and that their worship should be organized independently of the trappings, traditions and organization of a central church. They left a country where they were forced to go to the Church of England by the political establishment. About this time the King James Version of the Bible was translated into English and Presbyterians arose in Scotland. One William Bradford Pilgrim writer of On Plymouth Plantation was amongst the independent minded people who went on the Mayflower. The Puritans were cast out of Massacheusetts by the separatist. Puritans preached separation of church and state and colonized Rhode Island the Quakers would soon follow. The diverse religious practices soon resulted in respecting each person’s right to practice their religion. Thomas Jefferson uses separation of church and state from the language of the founder of the Baptists Roger Williams who wrote in 1644 of " A hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
              This shows that religious people fought the oppressive institutions of government many times over. These free thinkers became the individualists who broke with traditions and chose how they wished to conduct their lives. They created a diverse nation of diverse philosophies that brought rejection of royal authority, the ideas of balance of power, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state to the table, it was not limited to one group, one man or one philosophy and probably laid some other early seeds that led to the age of enlightenment in western civilization.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
            Yes, millions have died as a consequence of religious zealots - but for the most part, not as a consequence of religion itself (Islam excepted). I don't think that you can find Judeo/Christian theology that advocates the atrocities that have been committed, rather it has been under the guise of particular individuals.
            However, for those without a theological foundation, I think my proposition of the "baddest ass on the block" holds true. Without a belief in a final accounting for one's life, these people have assumed tremendous power and committed terrible atrocities specifically because they had no belief in a higher power. On the other hand, there are innumerable instances of those who have caused great goodness to occur in the world due to a belief. You probably hold Mother Theresa in great disdain because of her altruism, but her life not only provided comfort for thousands, but inspired millions to be better people.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 10 months ago
              Are you saying I'm evil and I do bad things becauseI don't believe in a higher power?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                I'm saying that not believing results in a situation where there is no rationale not to do "bad" things.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                  How so? Having a life philosophy that values natural rights means you do just that. What bad things could be rationalized?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                    But what about those that don't share such a philosophy? I keep telling you and others here that history is replete with those types. And counting on your fellow man to adhere to such a philosophy as a basic foundation of your personal security is foolhardy.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by gonzo309 10 years, 10 months ago
                      I think that cannibalism qualifies as philosophy that is rationalized as OK by the cannibal but not so healthy to his fellow man/woman. They most probably don't have a religious system to show them right from wrong even though they believe in their natural right to follow their heart (by eating someone else's).
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                    But you count on others having the same rational philosophy, and I keep showing you that history demonstrates that that is not true. So, you have a belief that is not supported by facts. Thus, it is no more "rational" than is my belief in a deity.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                      but how is that any different than believing in a deity and assuming that others who also believe will act rationally? As well, religions are all about control. You never want to address that in these discussions. I did not ding you btw. sorry, I had to "walk away" from this post for awhile
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                        Really, I don't give a whit about the points.

                        The difference is that if enough of my fellow humans believe in the deity, and that there is a reckoning of the conduct of one's life, that will tend to stabilize overall behavior. It does not require that all believe, just that enough believe that those who do not absolutely reject the deity are caused to question and therefore conduct themselves accordingly.
                        There will always be those who reject, and are absolutely narcissistic, who will be evil. Those society needs to deal with accordingly. It is those in the middle, those who could go either way, who are more likely to be swayed towards good rather than evil.
                        The lack of a deity leaves those in the middle only with the choice of doing good because of - why? Selfish interest would say do what ever is in your interest and don't worry about the other person. Doing good, when it does not directly promote ones self interest, does not seem rational, thus will be rejected. It is the idea that one will have to answer for ones conduct that sways the choice in the direction of good.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago
              This sounds like the no-true-Scotsman fallacy. I mean that if you're saying that usually when someone from a religion you agree with commits and atrocity, they're following their own agenda, not the religion's. I'm on the wrong track if you're saying members of religions you like in general don't commit as many crimes/atrocities.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                Show me the Judeo/Christian religious tenet that advocates such atrocities.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago
                  I thought you were saying when someone from a religion you like commits a crime, you overlook it saying they're not a true member.

                  I see you weren't saying that.

                  No-true-Scotsmans is the coolest-named fallacy, though.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago
                  There is all sorts of find bizarre stuff in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic texts that can be used to justify atrocities. I find it odd that people of these religions argue amongst themselves when, at least to an outsider, they seem very similar.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                    There are lots of stories in the Judeo/Christian texts. That said, at least the Christian theology is superceded by the ideas - "He who is without sin should cast the first stone," "Love your neighbor as yourself," and "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." None of which supports committing force against another. Nor does it say you are your brothers slave, so don't go there either.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • -1
                      Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago
                      I dunno. Moses did kinda kill a bunch of people...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                        Well, to be technical, the water killed the people when it closed up after the Israelites passed through it and were safely on the other side. It was the Egyptians choice to try to follow them. This, after Pharoah agreed to let the slaves depart then reneged on the agreement.

                        At most, Moses was accused of killing one slavemaster.

                        But, this example then goes to demonstrate that you accept miracles.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • -1
                          Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago
                          I wasn't talking about the water killing the Egyptians, and I didn't necessarily mean that one slave he accidentally killed, either. I was talking about all the people he had his followers slaughter when they went to a new land.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by gonzo309 10 years, 10 months ago
                    Once you add Islam into the mix, your point can be valid, but not based solely on Judeo/Christian texts. Some folks that have been both Muslim and Christian will tell you that they are polar opposites for the most part. For a better understanding of this, watch a video by Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist turned Christian at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flwt4Qkj...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -4
            Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
            The purpose of the "separation" was the protection of religious institutions, not the protection of the government.

            Hundreds of millions have died in the name of atheism, too. Just ask the victims of the Soviets, the Chinese, the N. Koreans, the Cubans and every other collectivist society (all of which agree with objectivism on the perfection of atheism) on the planet.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
              atheism is NOT a religion. It is a statement. What they died of is communism
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by overmanwarrior 10 years, 10 months ago
                Well stated. Religion is the choice in interpritation of the mythological understanding to the cosmos without observable evidence. Collectivists then use force to impose their version on others--which is the cause of the deaths referred. Collectivism is the villian, not the religion.

                The choice in adhereing to a religion is the acceptance of a mythic interpritation of events designed to explain away mysteries not easily proven. Many Objectivists have decided that they are not willing to accept things on faith--and need to build their world on observable fact. This is not the same as imposing the will of a collective group whether it be religious people, or even Objectivists into imposing themselves upon individuals with coerceon. A lack of respect for individual value is the root cause of death and religious zeal--and communism is every part of that root.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                  No, religion is an attempt to understand the why of the universe.

                  And the communist collectivists used force to impose atheism on others.

                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                "in the name of atheism", I said, and that's what I meant. Are you asserting that all those communists, and modern communists, who declare their atheism, are not sincere, and secretly believe in a created universe? In communist states, religious practices were crimes which landed thousands upon thousands in Gulags, if they made it that far. And where these atheists gained power, religious persecution spread.

                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ sjatkins 10 years, 10 months ago
          Sigh. Utterly irrelevant. If you believe things contrary to reason and evidence just because you want to then to that degree you are not practicing such prime objectivist virtues as rationality and honesty. The rest is largely a waste of time for this question and in this venue imo.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
            Samantha - you are coming very late to this discussion. What do you find irrelevant? The fact that there are innumerable historical examples of non-religious persons who exploited their fellow man? Or the fact that believing that your fellow man must also follow an Objectivist philosophy in order for you to retain your life?
            This venue is not an Objectivist enclave. There are plenty of those. This is an open forum for those interested in the movie, and as an off-shoot, the book Atlas Shrugged. One does not need to be an Objectivist to find AS meaningful and insightful. And those, seemingly like you, who insist on some sort of Objectivist "purity" degrade the ability for all of us to work together for our ultimate good.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
      yea, Jefferson really loved the Bible. so much so, he re-wrote it.
      “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
      ― John Adams
      "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, t renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter." Thomas Paine
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by gonzo309 10 years, 10 months ago
        I think you're confusing Christianity with the Christian religion. The religion has a horrendous past, as do most religions. If you read "A Woman Rides The Beast" by Dave Hunt, you'll discover how corrupt the Vatican has been in the past and this is why the founding fathers said that our country was not founded on the Christian religion.

        As deists, they believed in a creator and a higher power and always prayed to God for guidance, wisdom and strength to do what God placed on their hearts. They read the Bible, which gave them a sense of right and wrong, different from the direction the Church of England espoused. It is this and not the religion that drove them to declare their independence from the King.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment deleted.
          • Posted by gonzo309 10 years, 10 months ago
            Of course there's a Christian religion but I believe the founders followed the Bible and Christianity, not necessarily the Christian religion.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago
              You're not making any sense. How can you follow the Bible and Christianity but not follow a Christian religion?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago
                The same way a person can believe in trading value for value, the rights of the individual, and the virtue of productivity without joining the gulch.

                Must one move to Atlantis to be a producer, and not a looter or moocher?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 10 months ago
        Adams and Jefferson HATED each other. You can't use the words of one about the other with any assurance of od objectivity. The reason Jefferson did a "rewrite" (use that word carefully here) was his opposition to American reliance on British Church documents. Most especially grating to Jefferson was the King James annotation in the front of the bible. With Jefferson's Objectivist ideals he could not simply delete the cover pages and introduction from bibles printed in America since that would have been a violation of copyright laws. Hardly a thing he could do. By rewriting and making a few changes he was able to publish "The American Standard Bible". I own a Jefferson version and while it is different in some passages from the KJB, it is not as significant as the changes you would find in the "New American Standard Bible" ca1903, which was edited with certain questionable greek texts.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
          hi star. They weren't fighting that much at that time. They were fast friends. It was Washington's second term that tehy began a divide. I did not use the words of Jefferson about Adams or vice versa. I used Adam's words about Paine.
          You know more about Jefferson's bible than me. Thank you for the history lesson. ;)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 10 months ago
            The evolution of the bible is a area that I have studied extensively with the lines of textual fragments that were in their developments. Translations as they developed leading to our modern bible. I can assure you that the Jeffersonian bible was not a effort to rewrite the bible and all correction or edits made by Jefferson fell into three divisions that were quite simple.

            Modernized spelling and language usage, recall that in excess of 150 years had passed since the completion of the KJV.

            Organizational - the three themes of scripture weren't placed into as organized groupings in the KJB as Jefferson desired. He sought to place the historical, poetic and prophetical divisions in a more reasoned order. He wrote that he believed that this would allow easier access to new converts, would this have been a better method over the existing date based style found in the KJB. Since he abandoned this attempt, we are not sure.

            Lastly he wanted a pure product of American production as I already have mentioned.

            As for the interactions between Adams and Jefferson, yes their history was varied over the many decades they knew one another. I'm not at home right now and missing my computer and library, I'm sailing such waters with just a single paddle. I'll just be forced to pass on any further comments about them until I get out of this hospital and back home.

            Good night all.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
              Feel better Stargeezer, I will pray for you. If you want to look at the Bible Jefferson was working on it's at the National Archives, they might have online images. I saw it on one of those shows History Detectives or something.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
        Jefferson was remodeling the bible the way he thought it should be. He didn't rewrite it. He still believed in God. Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense that doesn't make him a founding father, it made him a great writer who did use some objectivist principles.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
          Although he did not sign the Declaration of Independence, without the pamphlet Common Sense, do you really think the seeds of revolution would have planted and grown and kept flourishing.
          "Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain." John Adams

          "When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think and whom you spend your time denouncing." Galt's Speech
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by gonzo309 10 years, 10 months ago
            If this is what John Galt said in his speech, then I think that is wrong. This would all be correct if you own the factory, not if you "work" in the factory. The workers get paid for their labor only. The profit for innovation and improvement goes to the owners, individual or shareholders, not the line workers.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
              without inventions the laborer cannot leave the malthusian trap. But that is not the case. there is the luxury for time and talent to push that basic labor equation-for management to perform better and labor to share their experience. and more TIME to learn additional skills to move out of an unskilled position into a skilled position. How is that possible? Invention
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
              That is a very antiquated perspective. Modern management methods acknowledge that workers have more to contribute than their mere labor. That is why workers are part of things like quality circles and continuous improvement activities.

              Workers are much more in the vein of Galt's speech than you give credit.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ WillH 10 years, 10 months ago
                +1, Amen, Here Here, toast, bully for you, and all those other sayings.

                I also propose that the best example of this is companies that have an employee stock purchase program, thereby allowing the worker to become owners of the company in a small part furthering their personal investment in their work and the business overall.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by gonzo309 10 years, 10 months ago
                  Which is the point I made in my original post, "The profit for innovation and improvement goes to the owners, individual or shareholders, not the line workers." As a worker, if you invent something, your rights to the invention are given to or taken by the employer.

                  In reference to Robbie's comment, I agree that modern management theory includes the input from the workers but they don't usually get additional permanent compensation for their participation unless they are stockholders or participate in a ESPP. I do have to make an exception for Wall Street where folks make continual astronomical bonuses for continually fleecing investors.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago
                Yes, I agree.

                I still think the Galt speech was true in that the factory made the jobs possible, not that the workers were entitled to a cut of the profits.

                It's still true today, but work is becoming more creative, less systematized, and has lower barriers to entry.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago
              I don't think it's mean literally. I think it's saying the opportunity to do work that valuable wouldn't be possible without the productive genius that made the factory possible.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
            He is not a founding father. He wrote a great inspirational pamphlet. Let me borrow from him" Time makes more converts than reason." -Tom Paine. It was the men who were willing to sacrifice who won independence from England. He did lay some seeds for Objectivism.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
              Not sure that there's any concrete definition of "founding father" that is commonly accepted. I think that any significant actor in the break from England and the creation of the US Constitution can rationally be considered a founding father.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
                Well try this and see if it fits Tom Paine with Objectivism He became notorious because of his pamphlet The Age of Reason (1793–94), in which he advocated deism, promoted reason and freethinking, and argued against institutionalized religion in general and Christian doctrine in particular. He also wrote the pamphlet Agrarian Justice (1795), discussing the origins of property, and introduced the concept of a guaranteed minimum income.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                  your point being?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
                    He broke with objectivism.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                      Who ever said that Tom Paine was an Objectivist?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
                        I am conceding the point that he wasn't religious, I don't see him as a founding father but that's semantics it has no bearing on the original post. I say I am wrong when I think I am, it is the only way to have logical debate.Scientists never throw out data.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
                        Tom Paine was originally brought up because the original post proposed that America couldn't have been started by Objectivists. I said the Founding Fathers were religious then KH brought up Tom Paine which we debated about. I pointed out that he really didn't fit the philosophy of Objectivism, so Tom Paine does not disprove the original proposal.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
              He was specifically recruited by Franklin to come to the colonies to aid. He was the first one in the movement to challenge the divine rights of a King. Before that, they were in vain trying to work with Parliament. Without his writings, it is unlikely the Revolution would have begun.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
      Your statement is true, but may be taken in the wrong way. All the founding fathers believed in a power greater than themselves. Some believed in a specific deity, others merely that they were not the "supreme intellect" in the universe. Regardless, they all believed that their actions were being divinely guided, whether they had issues with any specific religious teaching or not.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by MattFranke 10 years, 10 months ago
      That is incorrect. Thomas Paine is one of the first to come to mind, but there were others who leaned toward agnosticism more than religious.
      The point is even if they weren't religious, they knew that in order to believe what they wanted, they could not force their beliefs on others.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
        Tell us which part of the Bill of Rights would be kept if written by Ayn Rand.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by MattFranke 10 years, 10 months ago
          Well, I'll try to overlook for now, the fact that your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that not ALL the founding fathers were religious.
          I don't think that the BoR would look too much different than it does, except that it would be much more specifically qualified and defined in the terms of its premises. I've read a LOT of Ayn Rand and Thomas Jefferson; I think that they could get along just fine.
          Your reply reveals a dislike of Rand in the way you ask 'which part would be left if written by Rand,' implying that you think it would be less substantial if she wrote it. I disagree, I think it could be a much stronger document for the purpose which it was intended; to limit the power of government and protect the rights of man, all men.
          Also, your question lays on me something that I can't answer, nor should I be expected to know: How would Rand's Bill of Rights look? Are we talking if she wrote it back then(1790) with the knowledge available at that time? Or in her time with available knowledge? Or now with the knowledge available? You're asking my opinion, because I can't read her mind. I could tell you what I might think it would look like based on everything I know about her philosophy, I'd probably be pretty darn close; but it would be little more than conjecture, and therefore pointless at addressing a question that lacks context, or an exact answer from anyone other than Rand herself.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
            Tell me based on what Ayn Rand has written, what would the Bill of Rights include? I wasn't expressing anything other than a desire to see the facts, supported by evidence.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by MattFranke 10 years, 10 months ago
              How about you read what she wrote, and come to your own conclusion of the facts and evidence? Objectivist Epistemology and For the New Intellectual would be a good start, followed up by The Virtue of Selfishness, and topped off with Capitalism: An Unknown Ideal. That should keep ya busy for a couple days.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment deleted.
                • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
                  r-you can do better than that
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
                    Khalling, I have already deleted the comment. I have read the lexicon and I posted that fact already too. I am trying to get some help with this because everything tells me says there would be no Bill of Rights. I will then make a decision about leaving this site.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by MattFranke 10 years, 10 months ago
                      Where did you get the notion that there would be no BoR?? Rand never said it to my knowledge. If someone here told you that, I would be interested in a debate on that. But, again, I've never taken Rand to be hostile towards the BoR. She points out that there were mistakes and loopholes in the Constitution.
                      The only way I could Imagine that there would be no BoR, is that she would have taken the time to right up a Constitution that would not need to be amended after the fact with a BoR; as it initially happened. All the meat of it would be in the one, well-framed document.

                      Also, deleting a comment is not to be done lightly. If you say something, stand behind it. I've put my foot in my mouth a time or two; I'm sure you could still find 'em if you were so inclined. The fact is that deleted comments drive me freakin' crazy and makes the thread and subsequent comments less coherent and sometimes without context. Just a thought.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
                        Ayn Rand said that there are natural rights that you are born with, but the only true right is property. Then put she puts business interests above everything else. I put ??? next to the things that indicated that the bill of rights is only a natural right or not enforcable. Then there are things I hear by other objectivists such as having no standing army no borders etc.
                        Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life—but only on certain conditions.
                        Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered). ??? He has a voluntary agreement.



                        The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

                        Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary???, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

                        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 his 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.
                        Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division—not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, ??? nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man.
                        There are no “rights” of special groups,???? No freedom of religion
                        There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals. ??? All her rights are based on what she called obectivism which is only justified with some physical evidence.
                        a nation is only a number of individuals
                        If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. ??? that cancels out religion.

                        WOLA I wondered if Ayn Rand wasn't really implanting a kind of communism where the business community was the master and the rest were it's tools.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by MattFranke 10 years, 10 months ago
                  I could. But I'm not going to do it here simply just because you ask me to. Why should I have to save you all the leg-work, of having to analyze data and think for yourself, at the expense of my time? If you don't want to research it, fine. Just say you won't.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
    Objectivists would neither defend or protect a persons rights to practice their religion. When it comes to a point of view of something they cannot see touch hear or taste, or touch, something that does not benefit them, like religion, religious people would have to fend for themselves when that expression or practice is threatened by a non-believer's desires or choices.That would not be America which was founded on freedom. .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo