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 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" summary I've previously quoted, and/or the
essentials 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
