So far so good. And I loved We The Living. Sad story.

But where are the trolls!!!!!

point to move the discussion.
"The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force."
(Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand)
give a girl a break Lionel! it's Friday night and happy hour

You are right. As I read it, the statement standing alone, does not make it plain that it only relates to the initiator. The context must be considered. To read it otherwise would stand in stark contrast and contradiction to everything else she wrote. I am without my copy of C:TUI until Monday, but if overman can provide more context or the pg. numbers for me to look up on Monday, I have no doubt the contradiction will evaporate

FAA and insurance makes it very expensive for planes

soft balled you for the link ;)

In limited production (500 units per year) the M400 Skycar will sell for a price comparable to that of a four-passenger high performance helicopter or airplane, approximately $500,000.

Woah.
Fuel type Ethanol
Operational ceiling 36,000 ft
Endurance 5.9 hours
Range @ 131 mph (21.3 mpg) 805 miles

Cost: ????

Good link, thanks!

Those go 350 MPH. They are quite real.

http://moller.com/dev/

I've been saving my pennies. If only the government would get out of his way.

Yes, very quickly! : )

huh. he was being ingenious and here I thought he was being an A double S
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1jzs6dk4...
you have to watch it to the end. this is the first time I thought about drafting which is also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs0ZFN5ns...
for OA and for you, Lionel

It's a contradiction only when you take that one statement above and stick to it literally and absolutely. It argues there should be no force brought to bear against the evil aggressor because we should give him the freedom to discover the error of his ways on his own.

No - I read it all right. It's just that OAs caveat isn't in Ayn's statement, and that's what's under discussion.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with "Evil is a self-limiting proposition." Are you suggesting that government ought not restrain it as it will die out on its own if left to run amok?

I believe it is our capacity to distinguish between good and evil/ victim and aggressor that justifies the reaction of force to counter initial force. I do not see how sanctioning government to be our hand in countering force is a contradiction. Their abuse of that power in our name is something else. The former moral, the latter immoral.

You are reading the second part of the statement without the first part's caveat. The state can only use force against those who initiate force.
Evil is a self-limiting proposition.
A non-free country against a free country will lose ultimately. If everyone becomes a thief or murderer you will run out of victims. same is true with consumerism. There must be producers

if we're at 200mph, shouldn't we just be in flying cars?

Yep. We are on the same page. But take your statements and re-read the original post. Do you feel like government's attempt to restrain evil with force is "a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man's capacity to recognize the good" ?

Quickly!

All have the right to their existence and by extension property. Except those who would forcefully deny it of others. That is the purpose of government; to restrain the tyrants, to force restitution after the initial improper use of force.

Well then - I see your point. :-)

As long as someone is applying the force (the market, the police, I don't care), my argument stands.

I like where you guys are going with this, but I would rather the police not be a factor. The market would determine the proper speed limit and if a driver traveling too slowly didn't want to be run over by our Bugatti Veyron Super Sport 16.4 flying by them at 240 MPH, they'll learn to move out of the way.

:)

I've been throwing a lot into this thread and the opportunity to think on it has lead me to conclude there is a MAJOR problem with this reasoning. Here I must excuse myself for not knowing the context the statement was made in...for I could be going a direction that was unintended by the author. That being said...

I think she is considering a world in which all human beings have the right to reason and discovery and we should not impose good on them when left to their own devices they will arrive at the same good we have...as good is objective (there is A truth and it is discoverable).

The problem with this is we are living in a world of good and EVIL. There are many people who have absolutely no desire to be good. Given the freedom to seek and find what is good and right, they will instead use their freedom to murder, steal, lie, cheat, etc.

i.e. They don't care about the quest for truth and good. Society necessarily must erect laws to stand in opposition to these people, hire judges to pronounce them guilty, build jails to house them, and hire executioners to kill them.

http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/...