[Zundfolge]

It seems clear to me that many "Large L" Libertarians (and some "Small L" libertarians and libertarian/Republicans), were/are against the war in Iraq, and against US military ventures outside the US in general. In addition, Ayn Rand (who I believe we could all call a Libertarian Icon) was a pacifist and against any form of war or violence.

So what was the general Libertarian opinion of the Cold War?


The Soviet Union is clearly the enemy of Libertarianism and would kill off all the Libertarians in the world if given the opportunity, but I find a lot of pacifists and isolationists among the Libertarians I've known.

[Chris Rhines]

Varies depending on the specific libertarian involved.

Many libertarians of the time thought that the American government was more of a threat than the Soviet government, just as a matter of proximity. I find this hard to argue with.

Just as an aside, Ayn Rand is not much of a libertarian icon, nor was she a pacifist.

- Chris

[CaesarI]

Speaking as an Objectivist (Rand-phile) Rand was not a pacifist, in this regard she differs from Libertarians.

Peikoff authored a piece outlining that the proper response to Sept 11th was an ultimatum to the various arab countries sponsoring Terrorism (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia were listed as well as a few others), demanding they hand over those responsible, or face a full and direct assault by the US military.

Personally I identify with the Libertarian's despite Rand's failure to do so, and her general displeasure with political parties of all sorts. The Libertarian's are the closest to Objectivism of any political party in the United States.

The Objectivists argue we have a right to attack nations which deny their citizens rights, but not that we have a duty to do so.

-Morgan

[Andrew Wyatt]

THe russians were undoubtedly a threat, and i'm glad they're no longer quite as powerful, and i'm not opposed to the cold war, as it was the right thing to do, morally.

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

Better one tyrant 8000 miles away than 8000 tyrants 1 mile away.

Having said that, I believe in the right to protect the weak and oppressed, to aid those who are in need, but to look after one's own first.


Regards,
Rabbit.

[BigG]

Gee, I didn't even know they coined the term back then. Thought it came out about '85 - '90?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Speaking as an Objectivist (Rand-phile) Rand was not a pacifist, in this regard she differs from Libertarians."

Some Libertarians, Ceasar1. In fact, I'd venture to say that darned few Libertarians are pacifists, though a fair number might be opposed to starting wars.

[Brett Bellmore]

Big G, the party was founded back in the '70s, and the term has been around for a fair amount of time prior to that.

[Dorrin79]

As an Objectivist Libertarian - it depends

:D

In terms of maintaining a strong military to defend ourselves, MAD, and all that, I think it was neccessary.

A lot of the domestic anti-communist stuff was silly and unneccesary (not that I'm going to shed any tears for damn communists), and I think that our foreign policy of the time was pretty muddled (supporting the Dictator of the Week, just because he wasn't communist).

I also agree that we can claim the right to go in and free people from tyranny. A government that oppresses people is not legitimate, and has no 'right to sovreignity'. I don't think we neccessarily have an obligation to embark on those sort of operations, but we certainly have the moral right to do so.

As a side note, Ayn Rand was not a pacifist. She was opposed to foreign wars fought for altruistic reasons. If we had a self-interest in fighting them, then it was justified.

[Danimal]

So if Ayn Rand opposed altruistic foreign wars, could we count on her theoretical support for the war in Iraq, since I am constantly being told it is only for the oil?

[DigitalWarrior]

Ayn Rand was a a government witness for goodole McCarthy.

[CaesarI]

Sorry! I meant that most Libertarians are isolationists, not pacifists! This is my understanding of the party line anyway.

The war isn't about oil... and no one can speak for the dead... but her intellectual heir backs the war, as the the Ayn Rand Institute. It is noted that it is OUR oil in the first place, the arabs nationalized the wells which were discovered, and drilled by American and British oil companies. I wish I could find the article... it was rather well written.

-Morgan

[Don Galt]

Yes, its true the ARI supports the war.

However, Objectivists, do not.

It is an unfortunate state of affairs, but the Ayn Rand Institute does not endorse or practice objectivism, and hasn't for awhile.

The reason Objectivists, and libertarians, oppose the war is that it is being fought with tax money, and by men who are forced to fight it (the terms of enlistment in the military are unconstitutional, and immoral.)

An actual volunteer army of privately financed warriors going to Iraq or Afghanistan would be perfectly moral, and many objectivists would likely support them or go fight.

But initiating force against the American people (eg: collecting taxes) to fund a socialist / collectivists "war" against another nation is in clear violation of the NAP, and thus no libertarian or Objectivist can support it.

If the constitution had been followed, there would have been no need for the cold war or any of the spying, etc. The economy of this country would be so powerful, that hte rest of the world would follow our lead into capitalism, and the communist countires would have collapsed or been overthrown from within.

This is what is happening, but if we were a moral society, it would have happened decades ago.

[Don Galt]

To imply that Ayn Rand was a McCarthite is to do her a disservice. A transcript of her testimony is out there on the net somewhere... she called his committee a travesty, while still being as anti-communist as she always was.

All of us should be anti-communist.

[CaesarI]

Found the article I'd referenced before (http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/endterrorism.shtml) .

It is an unfortunate state of affairs, but the Ayn Rand Institute does not endorse or practice objectivism, and hasn't for awhile.
And you do? Pardon me, did she die and name you her intellectual heir? The reality is that Peikoff was named her intellectual heir, not you or I. You can argue whether the position is right, or wrong, but you are NOT possessed of the power to say who does, and who does not "practice objectivism".

Peikoff's remarks (http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/actofwar_lp.html), and the remarks of many (http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/actofwar.html) other prominent and published (http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/pr_body_war.html) Objectivists are all loudly in support of the war, though they might argue about it not being fought with enough determination/ruthlessness.

Real Objectivists don't support the way the US military is run huh? Rand herself was very supportive of the US Military (http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/westpointspeech.shtml) as it operated during her existance. Has it changed since 1974?

On the other side of the ocean... "The Objectivist Center" Objectivism... is slightly more tolerant of Libertarianism, but even their summary of the differences (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faqs/wthomas_faq-libertarianism-objectivism.asp) makes it clear that the two ideas are not the same. Notably "One important difference is that Objectivism holds that man needs government, whereas many libertarians do not."

Oh, and in case you were wondering, tOC supports the war (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/jrobbins_what-will-happen-now.asp) too (in case you thought I hand-picked one, here are the others (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/special/war-civ-wars.asp))

So... which school of Objectivism do you represent? Don Galt's?

Further links, for those still curious:
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/arwarquotes.html

*****************
Rand, HUAC, McCarthy
quoting from: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
McCarthy was not involved in HUAC and never served in the House of Representatives. Although he was a freshman senator in 1947, McCarthy had not yet begun his well-known campaign against Communism, which he initiated in February 1950. The later investigations of Hollywood that HUAC began in 1951 might be interpreted as a reaction to the anti-Communist furor raised by McCarthy, but he had no influence on the 1947 hearings at which Rand testified.
Note: McCarthy is NOT HUAC. Rand never testified before McCarthy.
Asked years later about her opinion of the hearings, Rand said that the hearings were a "dubious undertaking" and "futile" because a government inquiry would not legitimately be able to investigate the ideological penetration of Communism into the movies. It could only show that there were members of the Communist Party working in the industry. She did believe, however, that it was acceptable for the committee to ask people whether they had joined the Communist Party, because the Party supported the use of violence and other criminal activities to achieve its political goals, and investigating possible criminal activities was an appropriate role of government.

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/reisman.html

Rands objection was that HUAC didn't go far enough.

-Morgan

[tyme]

I have a selective service number. Ayn Rand supported the draft?

[Don Galt]

Ha! The very idea that Piekoff gets to decide who is an objectivst and who isn't is contrary to objectivism!

Ceaser is apparently unaware that Objectivism has a definition. IT is very easy to see whether someone complies with that definition, and thus, I can say clearly and without contradiction that the ARI does not support objectivism, and hasn't for awhile.

Piekoff was an unfortunate person to leave her rights to. I think he's cracked under the pressure.

Objectivism is a philosophy, whose tenants include the NAP-- the Non-aggression principle.

Since the definition of Libertarianism, is that Libertarians support the NAP, then ALL OBJECTIVISTS ARE LIBERTARIANS.

Not all Libertarians are objectivists, because objectivism includes more than just the NAP- it is a whole philosophy, whereas Libertarianism is a political ideology based on the NAP.

Since, in order to pay for war, the US initiatiates force by forcing people to pay taxes, Objectivists cannot support this war the way it is being waged. There is no wiggle room.

Furthermore, Objectivism is a philosophy of individual liberty-- individual decisions. Rand was very careful, and very successfull at not deifying herself-- one reason its called Objectivism instead of Randism. Unfortunately, Peikoff with his blessings and purges wants to be pope, and in doing so he veritably ????s on Ayn Rands grave. Nothing could be more offensive to an objectivist than appeal to authority, unless its a self-deified authority that demands ones supplication!

I accept that you're probably not well versed in objectivism, and I encourage you to read Atlas Shrugged and discover it for yourself-- discover the conclusions that Objectivism shows you. We may well disagree on things, or we may agree.

But if you do so, you will see that demands that people join a collective (Whether it be ARI or TOC) are anti-objectivist. Objectivism requires you to reject such collectivism.

For what its worth, I have not seen much from the TOC demanding you practice their form of objectivism... but I've seen little but such demands form ARI and their supporters.

[Don Galt]

By the way, in your eager appeals to authority, you made a significant error. People posting on the TOC Website in support of the war are giving their opinions. Even Kelley is doing that.

They do not, as an organization, take these positions, like ARI does.

But it was amazing for you to quote all those ARI links as if they were different schoosl of thought... they aren't. ARI requires ideological purity.

Finally, Objectivism does not require government. Nothing in objectivism requires government.

Rand supported government, and many objectivists erronously do as well, but objectivism, if practiced faithfully, will lead to anarcho-capitalism.

After all, without taxation, how can you have a government? A government that exists only by consentual user fees could be called a government, but its borderline, as other corporations would likely do a better job at providing those services.

You cannot advocate the initiation of force and be an objectivist. That is contrary to life, and thus contrary to objectivism.

If you can show a form of government that exists without initiating force, then I will ammend my statement and admit that objectivism doesn't require anarcho-capitalism.

So far, I'm unaware of any forms of government that comply with the NAP.

[Brett Bellmore]

Naming a binding "intellectual heir" sounds more Galambosian than Randian. :neener:

[buzz_knox]

men who are forced to fight it (the terms of enlistment in the military are unconstitutional, and immoral.)

Given that we have a volunteer army, your statement is false. Or do you deny people the right to choose of their own free will to agree to the conditions of enlistment?

Since the definition of Libertarianism, is that Libertarians support the NAP, then ALL OBJECTIVISTS ARE LIBERTARIANS.

That's a rather sweeping generalization. Not all Libertarians support the NAP. I lean more libertarian than anyway, and I find the NAP . . . deficient.

[Sean Smith]

Since the definition of Libertarianism, is that Libertarians support the NAP, then ALL OBJECTIVISTS ARE LIBERTARIANS.

What is this, the The Logical Fallacy Road? That statement is a Non Sequitur.

[CaesarI]

It's Peikoff, not "Piekoff" and it's Caesar not ceaser.

To use your own condescending language, and ad hominem assault:

I accept that you're probably not well versed in spelling, and I encourage you to read the dictionary and discover it for yourself-- discover the collectively agreed upon means of spelling that it shows you.

Furthermore, I gave my name: Morgan. You may use it, or you may use my username: CaesarI and I might tolerate Caesar, but ceaser is incorrect.

I am very well versed in Objectivism, thanks. I've read Atlas, and most of her other works as well. I note you failed to read any of the links I gave you, had you; you would have found I had articles by Rand herself expressing support for the US Military. So lemme get this one straight... not even RAND had Objectivism right?

"Objectivism" isn't in the dictionaries I possess. However, it was the name that Rand gave to her philosophy. As the creator of that philosophy, it is her right to define it as she so chose, not yours. She also has the right to determine who gets to define it at a later date, by naming an "intellectual heir".

Rand defined it on several occasions:
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
- Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged

Introducing Objectivism
By Ayn Rand

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won’t make it so." 2. "You can’t eat your cake and have it, too." 3. "Man is an end in himself." 4. "Give me liberty or give me death."
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency -- to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them -- requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot -- nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute -- facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man -- every man -- is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. Copyright ©1962 by Times-Mirror Co.

She fails to mention your glorious NAP, however, she does follow it, but this does not lead to Libertarianism, she didn't think very highly of Libertarianism at all:
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called 'hippies of the right,' who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.
[Ayn Rand, "Brief Summary," The Objectivist, September 1971]

For more on her definition click here (http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/essentials.html)

As for your definition of Libertarianism... well you can define it as you like, just as you spell as you like (how very individualistic of you!), but the rest of us have a much more complicated definition of Libertarianism. The Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/sop.html) doesn't define it as simply as you do, neither does Websters:

Main Entry: lib·er·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: "li-b&r-'ter-E-&n
Function: noun
Date: 1789
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
- libertarian adjective

How about you do us all a great big favor, and start supporting some of your definitions, instead of assuming all of us mindless collectivists automatically agree with yours.


Unfortunately, Peikoff with his blessings and purges wants to be pope,
Rand never purged anyone... nope, never, oh wait... except Nethaniel Branden, and...

Nothing could be more offensive to an objectivist than appeal to authority, unless its a self-deified authority that demands ones supplication!
::ahem:: what is offensive to some, may not be offensive to all. Feeling "offended" is an emotional response, thus, and therefore, it is not a "fact" which, according to objectivism, can objectively exist. I for example, may find the most offensive thing in the world to be people who presume they talk for other people, especially when those people for whom their talking have previously published their opinions. Other Objectivists are free to feel more offended by whatever they like. You for example really, really don't like the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" nevermind that you can't correctly identify its use.

you will see that demands that people join a collective (Whether it be ARI or TOC) are anti-objectivist. Objectivism requires you to reject such collectivism.
She called her little organization of friends "The Collective" jokingly. They discussed ideas, and allowed Rand to correct their poor logic, and show them the light. I am not a member of TOC, or ARI, or the Libertarian party. I follow her admonition to not join such. I think the split of TOC, and ARI was poor, and Rand's decision to not back Libertarianism is a poor political decision.

**Libertarianism may not agree entirely with Objectivism, however it beats the opposition, and is a step in our direction.**

The same argument is used by those Objectivists who support the war. Objectivists look at the big picture, rather than vetoing the whole effort on grounds that the entire military is funded by stolen tax dollars. They totally sidestep the whole argument about the system itself being flawed (if they believe it is, and while they oppose the draft, they've no objections to a standing army, or tax dollars used for defense). I for example, am fully aware that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, and feel it should be repealed. For this reason, I would say that the war is being fought unconstitutionally. I still support the war.

If we use *your* *perfect* definition of what *you* think an objectivist is, then there aren't too many objectivists. Ignoring who is, and who is not a "REAL" Objectivist, the vast, vast majority of people calling themselves "Objectivists" support the war.

Your argument that the war should not be supported because it is financed by stolen tax dollars is tantamount to saying that: "That guy holding that gun wants to kill me, but my salary, with which I paid for my firearm, and my training, was derived from stolen tax dollars, because I am a federal employee. Therefore, I don't have a right to defend myself, unless every dollar I earned is absolutely pure in the Libertarian NAP sense."

This is different than "We don't have a right to declare war on the Muslim nations that sponsor terrorism because we initiated the use of force against THEM when we did X" which an Objectivist *would* agree with. The fact of the matter, as laid out by Peikoff, is that they stole OUR oil, they blew up OUR citizens. Therefore, we have a right to attack them.

The ultimate reason for ANY of my posts was in response to the initial assertion that Rand was a pacifist, she was not, and on this I believe we agree.

-Morgan

[Chris Rhines]

buzz_knok -

It is possible to be a member of the Libertarian party without subscribing to the NAP, but it is not possible to so be a philosophical libertarian. I

A libertarian is defined as a person who believes that no one has the right to initate force against another person, or their property. That's the core of libertarian philosophy. If a person does not subscribe to the NAP, he cannot define himself as a libertarian.

- Chris

[Don Galt]

" A libertarian is defined as a person who believes that no one has the right to initate force against another person, or their property. That's the core of libertarian philosophy. If a person does not subscribe to the NAP, he cannot define himself as a libertarian. "

This is true. Its also true that Objectivists subscribe to the NAP, and anyone who does not is not an objectivist, by the definition of objectivism. (And the definition of objectivism I'm using is the one given by Rand in Atlas Shrugged.)

Thus, it is a simple matter to note that Objectivists are libertarians (Though, obviously since objectivism involves more than the NAP, the reverse is not true.)

People regularly quote Rand saying things about Anarchists or Libertarians. Of cours,e this is a logical fallacy-- as it is an appeal to authority, and ignores the fact that by *Definition* objectivists are libertarians.

I don't know what caused Rand to make the statements she did, I do believe she was bitter about her falling out with Rothbard and was speaking completely irrationally. There are some positions Rand held that are inconsistent with Objectivism- her thinking was not perfect.

That saying so is considered to be heresy by some shows how much of a religion objectivism, as practiced by ARI, has become.

Rand didn't like homosexuality either. I'd like to see someone make the case that homosexuality is immoral in the eyes of Objectivism. Which, of course, they can't. And they cannot make this case about Libertarians either-- so they quote rand, rather than give logical argument.

[Don Galt]

Caeser, your last post was an ad hominem attack on me. This is not how you make a case.

If you want to make your case, please show how objectivism -- not "prominant" "objectivists" -- makes the point you are trying to say it does.

I have shown how it does not. Getting qoutes back from you only confirms my assertion that when asked to make an argument against libertarianism from an objectivist viewpoint, all I ever get are quotes.]

These quotes, by the way, are mighty conveneient. You just say "Piekoff said it, I believe it, that settles it" and no discussion can proceed. Attempts to point out the logical fallacies in Piekoffs statements bog down, and in the end, you don't have to defend them because you didn't say them. A great example of irrational thinking is that Piekoff article about Kelley "Truth and Value" or was it "Faith and Value"? This is a man that considers himself pope, and banished Kelley for doing EXACTLY the same thing Rand did when she wrote Atlas Shrugged-- teaching people about objectivism.

[CaesarI]

N.B.: You began the 'ad hominem' nonsense, I replied in kind, and with the explicit statement that it was such.

For the second time, either use my name, or spell my username correctly.

But... let us discuss the definition of terms. You are defining "Objectivism" as:
(And the definition of objectivism I'm using is the one given by Rand in Atlas Shrugged.)

This statement is as vague as any of your other ones about Objectivism. I can think of two distinct meanings for it:
[list=1]
You are referencing *your* interpretation of *her* philosophy as espoused in her book.
You are referencing her summary of the philosophy in the back of the book.
[/list=1]

I will only discuss 2, because 1 is NOT the same. 1 is subjective, and will vary from person to person.

As a point of reference, I quoted 2 in my last post. You have offered zero citation of any of your claims to "what objectivism is" I have offered numerous.

Furthermore if 1 disagrees with 2, then your "Objectivism" isn't "Objectivism" it is rather "a philosphy derived from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and may be called Atlas-Shrugged-Ism (ASI). Since, as mentioned, Rand created the philosophy, and is free to define it however she pleases. In fact, the philosphy "Objectivism" could be the complete OPPOSITE of ASI (it isn't, but it could be).
**************************************
However, you're missing a point here, this isn't a forum for debating Objectivism. This is "Legal and Political", Politics, is not philosphy, and sure as heck, is not Objectivist Philosophy.

The BIG point I am making here is not whether or not Peikoff, is, or is not a pope-wannabe. The issue is "are Objectivists pacifists?", with specific reference to the current war. Whether or not YOUR definition of a "real Objectivist" agrees with mine or not, and whether your definition is correct or not, is moot. I don't care, it matters not one ioata from a political standpoint.

All people, who call themselves Objectivists, and who are published (in something other than an online forum) support the war in Iraq, and support the war against "terrorism" even if they disagree with how it is being conducted. This is my support for the statement that "Objectivists support the war" I don't care if "Objectivism as Don Galt chooses to define it, based on his reading of AS" supports the war or not.

Re: My use of links.
I will defend every remark Peikoff makes in this (http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/endterrorism.shtml) (previously linked) article.

-Morgan

[Dorrin79]

Look, guys, chill out.

I think it's very obvious from reading Rand's collections of essays that she did not always apply her first principles (which I agree with completely) to her situational ethics (some of which I disagree with).

Either of you read her cringingly bad (and irrational!) essay about "Why no Woman should want to be President"?

Her opposition to homosexuality is another good example.

I don't think these flaws invalidate Objectivism. They do help to reinforce the point that Objectivism is not, and cannot be, a system where "gospel" is handed down from the top. People are fallible, and Rand herself was not an exception.

[CaesarI]

I've not read this essay, and cannot find it online, link?

Rand's opposition to homosexuality is why the philosophy is called "Objectivism" and not "Randism" Objectivism can change, what she said cannot. In the ancient world there were 4 major schools of philosophic thought: Platonic, Aristotelean, Hedonistic, Stoic. Each school had a founding philosopher, but the philosphies would evolve, though still based in large part on the ideas of their respective founders.

Sciabarra discusses it here (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/homosexuality.htm)

The long and short of it is Rand believed it to be immoral, since her death, the philosphy has essentially abandoned this, though they still consider it to be "non-normal" see here (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/text/dmoskovitz_faq-moral-homosexual.asp?Faqs)

tOC argues Rand's fault was in that the complete genetic component of sexual orientation was unknown to her. It could be argued that she "checked her premises" but the data refuting her premises i.e. that homosexuality is *not* a choice, was non-existant.

Personally I think she was just really grossed out.

Some (http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/33/33adams.html) homosexuals are willing to embrace Objectivism despite Rand's attitudes.

-Morgan

[Don Galt]

That anyone could seriously question whether Homosexuality is immoral, according to objectivism, shows just how few people are willing to address what objectivism actualyl says. (And how many are confused by Rands *opinion* which they confuse for objectivism.)

If it is good for one, homosexuality is moral under objectivism. If it betters your life. If it is self destructive, it is not moral under objectivism. Thus, nobody can say for anyone other than themselves whether homosexuality is moral or not.

Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. Bisexuals can choose to have sex with only one gender. And I cannot think of an argument consistent with objectivism that can make such an argument.

Furthermore, Ceaser, according to the two definitions of objectivism you put forth, you reject BOTH and refuse to make an argument from either.

The war with Iraq is immoral according to objectivism, because it requires the initiation of force to fund it. I have made this statement clearly and repeatedly, and all you are able to come up with is "but, but, people who claim to be objectivists support it!"

Apparently, you are incapable or unwilling to actually make an argument. IF there is a question of differing definitions of objectivism, then you'll have to actually make an argument to get to it, or BRING UP A DIFFERENCE.

Last I heard, even "prominant" "objectivists" consider the NAP to be part of Objectivism.

You represent everything that is wrong with the modern objectivism in this thread-- you demand that we follow the edicts of others, rather than think for ourselves. Instead of argument, you provide links to others articles.

Objectivism is not a cult. It requires people to reach their own conclusions using reason... not to blindly follow the pronouncements of self-selected "leaders" as you insist.

If you wish to disagree with me, PLEASE MAKE AN ARGUMENT.

[CaesarI]

Despite your refusal to pay me the respect of addressing me as I have requested to be addressed, let's tango.

First though, some ground rules. Note in my previous post:
I will only discuss 2
I will discuss Objectivism as Rand defined it formally, not as she defined it informally in any of her fiction. Further I will use the "one foot" (http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/io.html) summary I've previously quoted, and/or the essentials (http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/essentials.html) piece, which uses a lot of the same material. For an even more formal approach I'll use: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/objectivism-lso.asp which is still in "beta" testing :-)

I use these, not on the grounds that either is perfect, but rather that without such, it makes it very difficult to complete this discussion. As anytime I think I've nailed down your interpretation of Objectivism as you interpret it in AS, you could change your mind, and force me back to square one.

***************
If it is self destructive, it is not moral under objectivism. Thus, nobody can say for anyone other than themselves whether homosexuality is moral or not.
This is patently false. Your premise first of all, is poorly worded, second of all, does not support your conclusion.

Premise: If "it is self-destructive", then "it is not moral under objectivism."
I'll agree to this

Conclusion: nobody can say for anyone other than themselves whether homosexuality is moral or not.
I disagree that this conclusion follows because:
Suppose homosexuality were self-destructive. If it were, it would be immoral according to your premise.
Suppose homosexuality is not self-destructive. It would then be moral according to the converse of the premise.
In no case does it require that morality be, as you are stating clearly, SUBJECTIVE. Rand believed in OBJECTIVE morality, and Objectivism advocates Objective morality.
Proof by example: Suppose act A is self-destructive. Person B practices act A. Person B believes A is not self-destructive, but in fact it is. Person C therefore has a right to condemn person B as immoral for practicing a self-destructive act.
****
According to my statement I refuse to debate according to a subjective interpretation of the "rules" of objectivism. I was in fact, quite clearly accepting arguments based on option 2.
"I will only discuss 2, because 1 is NOT the same. 1 is subjective, and will vary from person to person." This is not tantamount to a rejection of both, it is tantamount to a rejection of one.

I do, however, reject both as relevent to whether "Objectivists support the war." The difference is in definition. I define "Objectivists" as: people who call themselves "Objectivists" and who are not publicly recognized as that group of people other than "Objectivists". I do NOT define it as "people who rigidly adhere to what Don Galt thinks Objectivists should believe". Nor do I define it as "true and completely 100% correct practicers of pure, never-contradictory Objectivism". The former of these is relevent only to you, the latter of these, does not exist, except perhaps for yourself.
*******************

Re: "The war with Iraq is immoral according to Objectivism"
-I was not refuting this. Please re-read my posts. I was refuting that "Objectivists don't support the war". That Objectivists support the war, does not mean that it is moral according to Objectivism, but it does mean that they support the war. A is A.

you demand that we follow the edicts of others
I have never demanded anything.
Instead of argument, you provide links to others articles.
I am presenting arguments, with which I agree. I see no need to rewrite what has already been written by better writers and thinkers than myself.

If you wish to disagree with me, PLEASE MAKE AN ARGUMENT.
This statement, seems to be demanding I "make an argument", or else I am not allowed to disagree with you. I find this to be rather presumptuous. I am free to disagree with you whether I defend my reasons for disagreement in a public forum or not.

*********************

You have asked repeatedly that I specifically engage on on the matter of Objectivism, as it relates to the war (now defined by you as "the war in Iraq" as opposed to the more general war against the Muslim world). At great risk to myself in engaging in argument with a person with no formal training in the matter, I will now do so.

Your argument, formalized:
Premise 1: The war in Iraq requires the initiation of force to fund it.
Premise 2: Anything that requires the initiation of the use of force to fund it, is immoral.
Conclusion: The war in Iraq is immoral.

Your premises can also be used to hold that ALL government activities are immoral. Yes? So, this really isn't a debate about the war in Iraq at all, rather this is a debate about whether the Government has a right to tax people. It is now illegal for the government to enforce your contract with your insurance company. When you get in a car accident, and they refuse to pay, because you're an Objectivist, the government is now incapable of enforcing that contract. Thus, your property rights are now null and void. Thus, whoever has greater force wielding ability than you is now capable of coercing your decisions, thus your free-will is gone. Whoops. A further, much more formal outline of all this is

Objectivism calls for voluntary funding of government. Rand discusses it in her essay "Government Financing in a Free society" in The Virtue of Selfishness. She also notes that this is only possible once we are in a truly free capitalist society. She never mentions the full details of such a system, and says essentially that it is a problem for us to worry about when we get there.

From The Virtue of Selfishness pp 112-113:
Against the anarchists [advocating a market for government], Ayn Rand noted that a free market functions by the free choice of the people involved. As she explained in her essay "The Nature of Government" (in the Virtue of Selfishness), free choices are choices made while free from force. The anarchists want to have their cake and eat it too: it is impossible to have market competition (or even a proper market) for the provision of the protection that frees one from force in the first place. Anarchism, in practice, would amount to civil warfare

Reasons for a "free capitalist society" to declare war on Iraq:
1. The Iraqi regime is not a just regime.
2. It has violated the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire.
3. It has sponsored attacks on American civilians (well, one civilian at least, Geo. Bush senior).

On these grounds the war is justified. It is an act of self-defense, as well as contract enforcement. The war, in a "free capitalist society" could be funded without stealing anyone's money, and should be supported.

By way of analogy:
Libertarians support free immigration.
Libertarians don't support welfare (Social Security, et al.)
Some immigrants, would receive welfare (because it still exists).
Should Libertarians abandon their support for free immigration since it will result in the initiation of the use of force upon tax-payers?
****************

There's a lot of talk of "First Principles".

N.B.: Rand's first principle, unlike Libertarianism's, is NOT the NAP. She does NOT derive her entire philosphy from this. Rather her first principle is: "Existence exists -- and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."

From this, she derives her Epistemology: advocating Reason, from this she derives her ethics: Egoism, and from this she derives her Politics: Capitalism.

-Morgan

[Don Galt]

Morgan--

I insisted that you make an argument before I continue discussion with you.

Unfortunatly, you apparently do not know what an argument is. Most of your statements are merely conclusions such as "This is patently false" followed by strawmen knocking down argumetns I have not made, or flat out lies about what I have said.

Furthermore, repeatedly you engage in attacks on my character, such as:

Calling me a liar:
" anytime I think I've nailed down your interpretation of Objectivism as you interpret it in AS, you could change your mind, and force me back to square one. "

And the wimpy insult:
" At great risk to myself in engaging in argument with a person with no formal training in the matter, I will now do so."

For what its worth, I consider you to be an excellent example of why Objectivism is failing to find a wider audience. You demand un-thinking loyalty, and when pressed to actually make a rational argument, you squirt out a lot of insults and conclusions and very little actual argument. (Most of which is logically fallicious to begin with-- either attacking a strawman, or based on other logical fallacies.)

For example:
"roof by example: Suppose act A is self-destructive. Person B practices act A. Person B believes A is not self-destructive, but in fact it is. Person C therefore has a right to condemn person B as immoral for practicing a self-destructive act."

The problem with this is that Person C has no way of knowing whether person B is bein self-destructive by dating members of their own sex.

In fact, this is the fundamntal error of objectivism as it is practiced by the religious: You believe that, as person C, you can decide for everyone else what is and is not moral, based on YOUR opinion of what their life should be spent pursuing.

And this is contrary to objectivism because objectivism demands individuality-- that individuals define for themselves what is the best use of their life.


Really, you have no grounds for attacking my ability to make argument when you say things like this:
"t is now illegal for the government to enforce your contract with your insurance company. When you get in a car accident, and they refuse to pay, because you're an Objectivist, the government is now incapable of enforcing that contract. Thus, your property rights are now null and void. Thus, whoever has greater force wielding ability than you is now capable of coercing your decisions, thus your free-will is gone. Whoops."

Quite a series of non-sequitors, and irrelevant to the point at hand to begin with.

Unfortunately, I must conclude that you do not understand or follow objectivism, and merely you belong to a religion that calls itself objectivism. Otherwise, you would engage in rational debate and make arguments to support your positions.

I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged. Carefully.

PS-- if its not clear, I'm done with this thread. Even if you managed something worth responding, you have expended my good will. Feel free to have the last word.

[CaesarI]

Your rhetorical skills are superior to your logical skills.

The "parting shot" closing is classic. So if I respond I'm a bad guy. Well I'll accept the risk, and presume the audience saw through what you passed off as defenses.

Re: Lying.
"anytime I think I've nailed down your interpretation of Objectivism as you interpret it in AS, you could change your mind, and force me back to square one."
That statement couldn't be used to accuse anyone of lying; "you could change your mind" does not indicate, imply, or require that you "did". It thus, merely states that i won't play by rules that aren't clearly spelled out, cause otherwise someone has the option of changing'em.

Re: Wimpy insult.
Well yeah... :-)

(Most of which is logically fallicious to begin with-- either attacking a strawman, or based on other logical fallacies.)
That's fallacious btw. And I take exception to being accused of attacking a straw man. I went to some effort to insure I represented your arguments well, if you disagree with how they are represented say so.
The problem with this is that Person C has no way of knowing whether person B is bein self-destructive by dating members of their own sex.
Well this just demonstrates that my claim that you've no formal training in argument, and more spepcifically formal logic is accurate. You're attacking a generalized statement by saying that the particular doesn't hold.

My statement doesn't prove that homo-sexuality is, or is not moral. It proves that IF it is, then person C could know that it is.

That 'A' is self-destructive is an assumption made for the purposes of proving a conditional. That conditional being "IF (act A is self-destructive) & (person B practices act A) THEN (person B is immoral)"

Your claim that person C "has no way of knowing" that person B is being self-destructive runs counter to Objectivist Epistemology, which hold that man is capable of knowing real facts. To quote:
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).
Gives us the premise, in the previous argument that "a man, C, who uses his reasoning facilities, is capable of determining whether act A is self-destructive."

Your system has a subjective morality. Objectivism, does not. Your system holds that consciousness is the creator of reality. That person B, by virtue of his being person B, decides whether a fact (that act A is self-destructive), is true. You, are not practicing Objectivism.

And now I'm accused of non-sequitors. Give it a rest, you can't argue, I've assailed all of your points, and now you're trying to make it seem like I'm the badguy.

-Morgan