http://www.dhs.gov/secure-drivers-lic...
states are contesting it-however-think about it. when laws pass, how easy is it to walk them back

Could you elaborate on needing a passport to fly? I'm not finding that on an internet search. I see some references to states not having so-called "Real ID" drivers licenses, but those articles are several years old.

Politically, Objectivism and libertarianism have a lot of overlap. For example, the Libertarian Party pledge states, "I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."

I do electronics as a hobby -- ham radio, etc. -- and use logic
for rational discourse here in the gulch. . conservatives
are not all damned to hell just 'cuz you say so. . some are
objectivists and don't know it. . let's help them know it, OK? -- j
.

Well then you do not see that it applies outside of electronic circuits.

of course. . I got an A in logic and, well, you have my resume.
if you want to keep on insulting me, Dale, you are certainly
free to do so. . I have thick skin. -- j
.

of course. . and the "conservatism" which is currently
being used to nail people here in the gulch is old and stale.
the new version just might be better, though it is certainly
not objectivism. -- j
.

Do you understand logic - the science of non-contradictory thinking?

No gripe on your father. The point is:

To preach altruism "in theory" but uphold self interest "in practice" is a breach of which conservatives characteristically perpetrate. On abortion rights, gay marriage, and other "civil" issues, conservatives tend toward the "traditional".

I think a lot of followers make the error of comparing Objectivism to conservatism or libertarianism. It is decidedly neither.

Nah, you're k. ,: )

I marked him up, in case you wondered. . you are
the only gulcher whom I have ever downvoted, and
I gave it up for lent. . or, rather, springtime. -- j
.

I asked if you could identify my distortions, please. -- j
.

again, as I mark you with an upvote for heartfelt and thoughtful
discourse, let me correct your misunderstandings:::

I do not seek out chances to damn faith just for proof
that I am an objectivist. . I let it be understood as a
matter of course.

capitalism lifts all of the boats, no matter what you think.
it does not require any altruism.

history is pertinent, but labeling current-day conservatives
with an arcane or obsolete label from the past, of which they
are ignorant, is erroneous.

conservatism, for me, means that the government
gets the f@#k out of the way -- that's my efficient govt.

if I find interesting facts in WND, it does not mean that
I agree with their evangelical views. . you are mistaken if
you think that association is endorsement.

if you think that I am a troll, there is the "ignore" feature
which you may employ.

I don't think that you are a troll, despite your antagonistic
view towards the world in general. . I accept you as a compatriot,
including your flaws. -- john
.

That doesn't deserve a down-vote +1

john; You find fault with damning faith at every opportunity, and you want to try to lift all the boats and you think that history doesn't provide information or facts relevant to today's problems, then deny the philosophical basis of conservatives, then you define conservatism as an efficient gov't policy.

There's nothing Objectivist in those ideas. They're exactly opposite to Objectivism. Supportive of faith as a source of knowledge, altruistic in lifting all boats, blind to the lessons of history, and supportive of the anti-human concept of an efficient gov't .In another reply to me, you express appreciation of the values of various religions and occupations as if Objectivists should accept or even applaud such, from a man describing himself as taking the Galt's Gulch Oath every day.

Personally, I have no problem with you having those positions. It's absolutely your life and mind. But I do have a problem with your sophistry in describing yourself or your positions expressed, as relating in any way to Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

You are not an Objectivist and express a limited knowledge of Objectivism and what it means to be and live life as one. As such a prolific poster of an Evangelical Christian/Ultra-Conservative enews site like WorldNewsDaily headlines, you're providing the appearance of the Objectivists of this site supporting such biased views and slanted information sources.

I can't help but think of this behavior and statements as anything other than trolling with the intent of being disruptive, even destructive to the site and those interested in investigating and pursuing an understanding of Objectivism and the goal of Individual Freedom and Rights.**

You're right. It's not my great grandparents immigration system. And why is that? Perhaps because too many people are flooding our system, and we have to have some sort of control over our population. There was no immigration at all in America for most of the last century specifically because too many people had come here, and not assimilated into our culture.

The immigrant who came here legally and created maglight. An illegal immigrants cannot earn an income, own property, etc.. If they do so, they are removing resources from a system against the wishes of the society that set up that system. Rand wasn't an illegal, she was a refugee. That is a very different situation. And, of course scarcity exists. Land is a finite resource for example. Currency was a finite resource until current times when it became a worthless piece of paper. I'm not sure what I said that was inconsistent with property rights, the constitution, or Objectivism. Please clarify.

Rand was likely illegal for a time. The immigration process in the US is protracted and silly. This is not your great-grandparents' immigration system. Further, you are not protected by that process. In fact, because people think as you do-guess who has more rules to follow? YOU. as of Jan, you will have to show a passport if you fly across STATE lines. WAKE UP

I do not think you are a troll, silver. I will say that it is not just a matter of disagreement. You have made several statements that are inconsistent withthe concept of property rights, the Constitution and Objectivism. Let's take the main concept you stated.-0scarce resources. There is no such thing as scarcity in any meaningul sense. The immigrant who came to the US and created Maglite for example, built a huge company employeeing thousands. He took nothing from you and created wealth, offers jobs and built his own private property. To suggest that the US is made up of only a 0 sum game is to not understand the most basic tenets of capitalism. Now, which of your other points do you want to argue?

Well said.

Hear, hear. Objectivists will find no better political allies than Conservatives - and no better potential converts. The other problem to this is that the main disagreements over policy are ones even Objectivists admit can not be resolved as they center on the existence of God.

Well said.

There is no "purism" in any of the dogmas. Yes, all have a dogmatic component. When I hear someone spouting about "conservatism", "communism", "liberalism", pragmatism, "progressivism" or any of the flavors of the day, I can only think that all of the terms are offbase (yes, including objectivism). In the Conservative movement (if you want to call it that), you have the NEO-Cons, the Libertarians and the "Classical" Liberals. On the other side, you have the Liberals (who definitely are not), the Progressives (used to be Socialists or Communists of the American variety) and the rest of the crowd.

It is quite funny watching people argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin because that is exactly what this is if you look closely. Freedom is also an interesting concept that only applies to one's point of view and as we know, there are many different views.

Being a Libertarian the belief is that your freedom ends at the tip of my nose and that we all must be responsible for our actions, etc. Also, almost by definition (at least mine) being an Objectivist is really much closer to being a Libertarian isn't it?

The individual is responsible for himself and himself only. Our relationship with others is predicated on working in one's best interests without ignoring the concept of being part of a larger organization when at times we act in the best interests of the group because there is a direct benefit to our own well being.

It is a voluntary action dictated by our needs and personal mores', tempered with the knowledge that it is also for the good of the order. The operative word is voluntary and not coerced!

Thanks for the heads up. But I can sometimes enjoy the same qualities! :-)

Then I am in good company as my daughter introduces me to her friends as "an acquired taste". I like straight talk and if something is in my mind it will most always come out of my mouth. In most cases it serves well but has gotten me in trouble on occasion.