yes, agree with everything you are saying. I was responding to another comment -probably maphesdus and articulating his desire for group "rights." thank you for your comment. Comment more please.

@khalling,

Groups qua groups do not exist. They do not have a life and mind and will of their own. Only individuals exist; therefore, only individuals can have rights. The ascription of "rights" to groups, great or small, reveals a defective understanding of proper concept formation and the consequent invention of false rights, i.e. group "rights", which has lead inevitably to the denial and violation of legitimate individual rights. The most effective deterrent to discrimination is not to threaten its practitioner with violence initiated against him or her by the government on behalf of the discriminatee, for that action violates the discriminator's private property rights and logical corollary rights to freedom of association and freedom of contract. In a free and civilized society, the proper approach to take is to question, debate, and dispute the irrational thinking underlying the discrimination, and use social ostracism and economic boycott to persuade the discriminator to change his or her behavior. This leaves the discriminator in the position of being responsible for his or her own thinking, and for all of the consequences that follow therefrom.

"You bring up the issue of not forcing people to behave as you think they should, but the fact of the matter is that it's not possible to maintain a peaceful society without some level of government coercion. The belief that it is possible is an anarchist ideal, and I have no respect for anarchy. Society must have laws and regulations if order is to be maintained.

Since society as such does not exist, since only individuals exist, WHOSE laws and WHOSE regulations and WHOSE order are to be maintained ? And to what end ?

Forcing bigots, racists, etc., ultimately at gunpoint, to refrain from being discriminatory where their own lives and property are concerned is a flagrant violation of private property rights and their logical corollary rights to freedom of association and freedom of contract. Ultimately, in practice, it reduces them to the status of slaves--slaves of the government, and slaves of those against whom they discriminate.

In order for you to prove that you have a valid right to my life and my productive efforts in my capacity in any occupation, to my business's goods and services, to occupy my real estate as a tenant or its new owner, you must first prove that the government has a valid right to treat me as a slave, as government property, for your or anyone else's benefit. You must prove that such a right exists that legitimately undermines and overrides my individual rights to my own life and private property. In other words, you must prove that the state has a valid right to violate rights.

Good luck with that !

My refusal to deal with you in any way, to exclude you from my association, to refuse to do business with you, to refuse to hire you, employ you, rent or sell my real estate to you, for ANY reason whatsoever, is not a form of tyranny, for I leave you completely unharmed--you have not been harmed by my refusal to deal with you in any way because you are not rightly entitled to anything of mine. I leave you free to take your leave of me and solicit association, employment, business, etc. with anyone else more rational than I am who is freely willing to do so.

You'd probably retort, "But what if EVERYONE were a bigot ? What if everyone were to be irrationally discriminatory, and the government did nothing to stop it ? There would be ubiquitous chaos and violence !

No, there would not.

Most people understand that it is in their own best interest to refrain from being irrationally discriminatory because they know that being so would result in their losing business and friends by social ostracism and economic boycott, both of which are more powerfully persuasive deterrents to bigoted, racist behavior than anti-discrimination laws enacted against them.

As for those anti-discrimination laws, they created a lot of injustice by their being extended to apply to private property and private association and contracts; they should apply ONLY to government and its institutions and property.

As for anarchy, Rand had a limited understanding of it--as do most people, including you--asserting that anarchists are "lower than communists" because communists at least believed that government is necessary, though she rightly was opposed to the latter's form of government.

My position is, to paraphrase Jefferson, that that government governs best that governs least, and governs locally, that it is respectful of legitimate individual rights--including those of bigots and racists--and is completely, unconditionally voluntarily funded.

I suggest you educate yourself about anarchy by reading works by Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, and Hans Herman-Hoppe, and reflect on the myriad ways that we anarchically conduct our everyday lives, and do so without any consequent chaos and violence.

No I'm saying that an Atheist holds no belief, which is different that a conviction espoused that a supreme creator does not exist. Consider the argument that Santa does exist, or that Santa doesn't exist. If one had no concept of Santa to start with would he be held as one who does not believe? No, he would be considered A-Clausist, rather one who lacks a belief in Santa, not one who believes he's fake or real. Its subtle but distinct.

Also consider the statement "what is your stance on a supernatural entity that created everything?" Its a nonsensical question because the very definition of supernatural puts it outside the realm of man defining or understanding anything about it BY DEFINITION! If you substitute the word GOD for supernatural entity the proper response to the question should be "Huh?", because the question doesn't make any sense. Supernatural, beyond the natural.

Read it... and the other two linked with it. Crichton is a real thinker, makes a lot of sense. Is an objectivist whether or not he accepts the label.

As is mine... in that I'm actually thinking, rather than just latching onto ideas that, on the surface, sound good. Rational thought requires a long-term view and the consideration of all possible consequences of a proposed action, not just the desired consequences, but the unintended as well. One thing Ms. Rand railed against incessantly was "range-of-the-moment" thinking - the choice of actions that result in a short-term benefit but, because all consequences were not considered, a much greater long-term harm.

John Birch Society? From the early sixties - a good decade, age is showing.
Thanks for the info. My thinking now is a bit different to what it was then.

Objectivism gets more "play" now: the Ayn Rand Society is a subgroup with the American Philosophical Association, along with William James, and others. I was waiting for a criminology class to begin when I heard "Ayn Rand" come from another classroom. There she was on the blackboard with Plato and the boys.

My community college instructor for symbolic logic was working on her doctorate at the University of Michigan. She was a strict rationalist. "You mean that you accept that A is A but you are not sure that the sun will rise tomorrow." She thought a second and then said, "Yes."

Loved Philosophy 12A! Easy A with one of my favorite teachers. So disappointed because there was never enough interest to have a 12B.

Bummed too to discover that my professor was NOT impressed when I told him I was an OBJ.
That man should have been one of us - or at least an ally.
That was my first sign that not all was well within the Body Objectivist.

I recall the line "There's no one left but thee and we and we're not sure of thee" from a song "The John Burch Society" by the Chad Mitchell Trio - early sixties folk singers.

So do I understand you correctly then, Max, that an atheist holds open the possibility of a creator?
And if I'm reading you right on that - can you support that with some dictionary-type reference?

I go with a modified Buckly rule. He said you should vote for the rightwardmost viable candidate. So I vote for the guy who most closely approximates my views who has a chance of winning. So, usually Republican

Actually atheism, properly defined is a lack of a belief, a subtle but important distinction. It makes no positive claim that a supernatural entity does not exist, just that one doesn't hold a belief concerning the existence thereof.

Secondly, Agnosticism, suggests that knowledge of such a thing is impossible. "Philosopher William L. Rowe states that in the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity lacks the requisite knowledge or sufficient rational grounds to justify either belief: that there exists some deity, or that no deities exist." Which is to say that agnosticism is made from a claim of omniscience, because to suggest that we "can't know" suggests knowledge of all that is possible to know or not know, which is fallacious.

You make a good point. In fact, Obama's actions reveal a strident march toward fascism -- an over-muscling of the economy in the traditional far left vein, but now also a serious infringement on individual rights that should shock far left Democrats. And I do agree that the Republican party has proponents of both less regulated capitalism and individual freedoms. The sad thing, and the trend that must be reversed, is that many hard-working, good-thinking mainstream Americans are, I think, unwittingly getting on the fascist bandwagon. And politics is by nature a pragmatic animal. So who do you vote for? Certainly not today's Democrats. Republicans or Libertarians? Maybe both, depending.

I've encountered many trolls within the Objectivist community. Mostly on the Atlas Shrugged movie fb page. They're here....be sure of it...but don't stop expounding Objectivism. There are some here who are at the beginning of their journey as well.

JE, if you have some time, take a look at the transcript of Michael Crichton's speech "Environmentalism as Religion".

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...

Environmentalism is a religion - blind worship of Gaia - Nature - Mother Earth. Her worshipers are willing to sacrifice anything (as long as it doesn't affect them personally) or anyone (else) if they believe it will keep her happy. And like most organized religions, the "organizers" profit. As Ms. Rand says (and I'm paraphrasing here), when someone talks about "sacrifice" you can bet someone is there, hoping to collect the sacrifice.

Gee, who'd athought!

There is much marketing today designed to educate as to the meaning of Objectivism. Those who don't even understand the philosophy certainly cannot be called Objectivists; and those who can do not have such contradictions. As a rational philosophy, Obj.ism can easily address every political issue in fundamental terms. Let's hope a true Obj.ist will some day lead this country back to its roots.

The differences between self-interest and self-centeredness are significant, yet both are under the umbrella of selfishness. The purposeful and even sloppy redefining and confusing of words and the conflating of concepts and contexts has clouded the communication space so much that's it's easy to find oneself in a quagmire.
I've yet to find a simple way around the problem, particularly in the limited time allowed for serious discussion of such issues. There just don't seem to be that many that are willing to exert the mental energy needed to understand.

Exactly!!

To get it out of the way, the original post on "trolls or ignorance" is too much like putting labels on people. The evolution of an Objectivist should not be discouraged. It is in no ones best interest.
Rand did not have Roark judge nor label Wynand for his failure to be what he might have become. Objectivism for its own sake is not the same as being a functioning Objectivist in a person's own daily life. To think otherwise is just that much more dogma. Any philosophy has to be something you can apply to living.
Next, Khalling is completely right about Marxism and environmentalism being more dangerous than religion for society. Actually, environmentalism has become a pseudo-religion of its own. Marxists recognize the need of people to have a higher being. Thus, they transition religions into more similar entities. From there, they move the masses into the UN's Gaia worship. Marxism and religion are merged, setting the stage for the ultimate worship of the world state. Is not Maurice Strong's temple to Gaia in Colorado, near where another poster said they have all those unused police cars sitting idle for Obama's visit? I would say with all that is facing thinking people, we need all the true or budding Objectivists we can get. Politics is a a shadow world of smoke and mirrors, where both sides have the same dastardly goals, which do not involve allowing reason nor free thinking people. .
I would not rule out a religious belief in Objectivism, but I would question organized religions where someone inserts themselves as go between for the believer. One needs to question the influence and rules of organized religion, and remember it is quite often more of a profit organization. Make sure you know what you are seeking or getting, and be true to yourself.

Well said!