FSTDT

Thales #fundie forum.objectivismonline.com

People who are serious about ideas have to deal with the central tenets of the philosophy, not out of context statements. Otherwise, they aren't going to convince anyone of anything.

As to Ayn Rand's statements here, I'm sure it stems from her disgust over altruism and to the evils to which it leads. Altruists are hell bent on bringing everyone down to the same level and they love to inculcate guilt over issues like these. If you want to see direct evidence of what altruism does to people, the results are writ large in history. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and other collectivist totalitarian states show clearly how much life is valued by altruists.

The end result of such a moral code is the exact opposite of caring for people, because at core it's saying "You are nothing", “Du bist nicht". Altruism is death worship. Anyone who acts on altruistic premises, whether they know it or not, are acting on ideas that do not value individuals, and we’re all individuals, including those who are handicapped. I don't have that particular lecture, so I can't comment any more than that.

JASKN #fundie forum.objectivismonline.com

I know I am preaching to the choir on this one, but I want to get this out:

Traffic laws are a travesty of the justice system, punishing people for violating nobody's rights. Everyone breaks traffic laws, often willfully and sometimes without even knowing about it, both of which suggest bad lawmaking. At best these laws serve as poor substitutes for what would otherwise be contractual agreements for private road usage, at worst they exploit the power of government force by expropriating wealth for use toward illegitimate government activity.

I am fed up with these laws. They are like taxes in that the money stolen from you and me is not great enough to warrant a serious uproar or rebellion, or even a letter to a government official. They are unlike taxes in that one can put a face to every single penny being stolen: the police officer, and as a side-note this has had a big negative effect on how I think of the police generally. How does one live with one's self when stealing money from another person, face-to-face, as part of a career?

The solution is privatizing our roads, whereupon everyone will be happy and nobody will be punished for using his own judgement on the road, unless it is warranted through contract breach or by damaging another or his property. That would eliminate the laws automatically. But since most people seem to accept roads as inherently government-operated, somehow setting aside the poor quality, upkeep, and price as a standard different from their other dealings with business and service, I doubt that will happen any time soon.

As a fast driver and a lover of the road (I dream of 7-lane highways), perhaps I am extra sensitive to traffic laws, cracked roads and congestion. Is there anyone else who shares my sentiment? What about the circumstances necessary for privatizing our roads?

Eiuol #wingnut forum.objectivismonline.com

@Eamon Arasbard

And finally, I have a question about an argument which I've seen from a lot of Objectivists regarding primitive societies -- namely, that you should support any advanced civilization which is in conflict with a more primitive society for possession of territory, for the reason that they are more advanced. How far do you take this argument?

I actually haven't heard anyone state this. Or at least, stated this way, it really isn't Rand's position. For Rand's position, I agree she made unfair generalizations of Native Americans, but her premise as I remember is that a sufficiently primitive societys has no sense of property rights. If they have no sense of propety rights, there are no property rights to violate. Any "invaders" are morally justified to claim territory, especially by being a considerably advanced society. I don't think it is meant to justify killing, just that property wasn't stolen or appropriated. It's not that one society or another has territory, though.

The important question is if they really were so primitive. Maybe some were, but as you say, plenty did have notions of property and/or rights, even if not fully developed.