Yes sir, maybe one of the better main battle rifle ever. Heavier than a few of the newer, but I prefer a solid weapon. But, damn, it's getting spendy.

I mean both for clarity and definition, and to be honest I don't see much difference.

I disagree with your description of human perception as subjective. I suppose it can be if the individual refuses to apply rational and logical thought and to use his reason to determine the objective reality of what his senses perceive. I doubt that any Objectivist would accept your definition of traffic law requirements as the rational and objective way to drive. I'm not even sure that the requirements written in law can be defined as rational and objective, since they are really up to the subjective analysis of the traffic cop that wants to increase his quota for looting to pay for his salary.

I haven't read your 'baddest ass on the block' postulate, but I suppose it traces from some of the old Feudal system arguments. I've met a lot of baddest asses in my life. They're generally not, but in the individual''s right for self defense lies the right to acquire the weapons required or hire the help needed. In an Objectivist society, the government has the power to apply the necessary force to the 'baddest ass' if that's required. The Objectivist also has the right to travel and go elsewhere if his rights are ignored or not supported.

I repeat that Objectivist DO NOT insist that mutual respect and autonomy is the only 'rational' perspective. They do insist that would be a better world, but we don't live in a la-la land of peace and flowers. We fully expect to have to defend ourselves and our property from those that would loot. Further an Objectivist would never try to force or coerce another into acting or believing anything, though they might try to demonstrate the rightness of their philosophy in the face of the other's failures.

I did not suggest otherwise.

It would start with something like "The first right is to live life as you see fit granting others the same right. All else that is good for a human and any group or country of humans follows from this."

It is not a virtue to make fun of anything important.

False and irrelevant.

Sigh. Utterly irrelevant. If you believe things contrary to reason and evidence just because you want to then to that degree you are not practicing such prime objectivist virtues as rationality and honesty. The rest is largely a waste of time for this question and in this venue imo.

Please help me answer this. I have tried to ask it in as many ways as I can. I have read the Lexicon and I can't tell for certain from what is written there? Would Objectivism delete the Bill of Rights?

Love? Justice?

Would Ojectivists delete the Bill of Rights?

but how is that any different than believing in a deity and assuming that others who also believe will act rationally? As well, religions are all about control. You never want to address that in these discussions. I did not ding you btw. sorry, I had to "walk away" from this post for awhile

Believing in that higher power really does wonders for some, doesn't it? Keeps them all decent and on the straight and narrow and stuff. I wonder if disgusting pigs are allowed into heaven.....

Well stated. Religion is the choice in interpritation of the mythological understanding to the cosmos without observable evidence. Collectivists then use force to impose their version on others--which is the cause of the deaths referred. Collectivism is the villian, not the religion.

The choice in adhereing to a religion is the acceptance of a mythic interpritation of events designed to explain away mysteries not easily proven. Many Objectivists have decided that they are not willing to accept things on faith--and need to build their world on observable fact. This is not the same as imposing the will of a collective group whether it be religious people, or even Objectivists into imposing themselves upon individuals with coerceon. A lack of respect for individual value is the root cause of death and religious zeal--and communism is every part of that root.

Hello Hiraghm,
I do not fully agree with this. There are exceptions. It depends upon your hierarchy of values. If you love someone or something so much that you could not bear to see them or it (a loved one, your nation and/or the freedom of your descendants etc.) perish you may sacrifice your own life willingly. "If one wants to measure the intensity of a particular instance of love, one does so by reference to the hierarchy of values of the person experiencing it. A man may love a woman, yet may rate the neurotic satisfactions of sexual promiscuity higher than her value to him. Another man may love a woman, but may give her up, rating his fear of the disapproval of others (of his family, his friends or any random strangers) higher than her value. *Still another man may risk his life to save the woman he loves, because all his other values would lose meaning without her.* The emotions in these examples are not emotions of the same intensity or dimension. Do not let a James Taggart type of mystic tell you that love is immeasurable."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/love.h...
To the one sacrificing their life, they may be receiving the satisfaction of knowing their will, will be done and the continuance of something they value more...
The principle applies universally.
Respectfully,
O.A.

atheism is NOT a religion. It is a statement. What they died of is communism

Hiraghm you are SCUM and ignorant to boot.

Your comment indicates that you have given up your natural rights, but NATURAL RIGHTS do exist just the same as geometry, government, and love.

NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!
don't EVER put a comment like that on this board again or you will be gone