I did read the debate, and it is an interesting read. I don't think I have much to add, however.

Very well said and I agree with your take. +1

Fundimentalism and extremism of any ilk are a menace to civilization. Repression of reason by bullying is a menace to civilization.

You said. "As far as being "altruists," I believe that the concepts of loving others, sacrificing some of my belongings to the support of those I wish to be a benefit to, and promoting the survival of others besides just my own self are generally accepted principles for virtually every group outside of the very narrow band of Randians."

What you describe is NOT altruism; you are not sacrificing a greater value to a lesser one.

well said.

A very good discussion here, although the definition of a 'group' always has limits. I long considered myself a Libertarian, BUT found the Party's and many individuals' blindness toward the islamic menace illogical and unacceptable. I like the reference to Objectivists NOT accepting drugs THEMSELVES, for what it would do to their mind [something controlling me even before I heard that reference] BUT I reject Objectivists claiming to KNOW there is no G-d. In particular, I believe that if a person is caught in a situation that is likely to kill him/her, and ALL possible actions have been taken, calling on G-d will not only provide some personal peace, it certainly can not hurt -- yet a Pure Objectivist would NOT allow for such.
Thus I find I am not exactly an Objectivist, nor am I a Libertarian. I am ME, however, and well satisfied with my outlook, ALTHOUGH open to modifications!
Steve

Come again?

Love it!

Since no real libertarian would support any government sponsored largesse, I find it rather funny that this comment would come out like this.

Libertarians believe in "self ownership." That means *I* own *me*, and that I have full control over what I produce, and that I can do with it whatever pleases me most. Furthermore, what I do with what I produce is my decision, based upon my own rational thoughts and plans.

Who are you, or anyone else, to denigrate me for my rational choices?

As long as I do not force others to act in accordance with my rational choices for my own belongings, then what could possibly be an issue?

As far as being "altruists," I believe that the concepts of loving others, sacrificing some of my belongings to the support of those I wish to be a benefit to, and promoting the survival of others besides just my own self are generally accepted principles for virtually every group outside of the very narrow band of Randians.

If I make a rational choice to take some of what I produced to help others, what objectivist philosophical point have I broken?

That "reality exists?" Nope. That I have free will and receive validation through observation? Not hardly. Capitalism? I can't see how.

That I "face the reality of life and death," and "chose my values and rational ethics" so I can "decide what principles of action are required?" Again, no.

The only point I "break" is what seems to be a deal-breaker for most folks I speak with, and that is her point that I cannot be altruistic and have the "highest moral purpose of my life."

And, frankly, this is one point where she is in error. And every parent or grandparent knows it. Every real school teacher knows it. Nurses know it. Police and soldiers know it.

That is why I will never identify myself as a Randian, and almost never identify myself as an objectivists (either big-O or little-o).

If you truly believe that libertarians have "no true philosophical underpinnings" and we are "not able to morally defend" our position, then you have never read anything I have written. And my writings are pretty mild.

The difference is that Objectivism is a philosophical system. Libertarians have no true philosophical underpinnings. They are not able to morally defend their position because they are willing to cast a wide philosophical net based on nothing more than the "non aggression principle".

I upvoted this one, not because I agree with it, but because it made me laugh.

(L)ibertarians believe that laws have one major justification: keeping order between individuals. They are there to make sure one individual does not abuse, hamper, or endanger another one.

Hence you might be suprised to see how many (L)ibertarians would support the traffic laws. Ditto with the (l)ibertarians, who believe in the philosophies, but are not part of the political party.

Meanwhile the only Randian with whom I personally associate brags about how fast he can make his daily commute through Bay Area traffic. I asked him a couple of months ago how many accidents he has caused, and his response was "none anyone could prove."

NOW you see why I laughed when I read the comment... :-D

Libertarians see speed limits as an infringement on their individual liberty. Objectivists recognize that they are a guideline to help keep traffic moving at a speed that is (more or less) appropriate for the road in question.

I believe that if speed limits were abolished, Objectivists would keep their driving speed in line with other traffic for safety reasons. Libertarians, meanwhile, would go nuts because there would be no number on signs to exceed "to make a statement".

Objectivists make their own rules in accordance with a universal standard. Libertarians require laws in order that they may disobey them. A peculiar mindset.

Most of the (L)ibertarians I know are focused on freedom *FIRST*, because that is how we get to a point where we are capable of moving forward as intelligent beings. How many doctors and philosophers were in the prison camps during WWII?

Answer? *ALL* of them that did not agree with Hitler...

I think he meant it as a summary, since that's what I meant, and I borrowed it from Rand and that's how she meant it. The context of the summary is covered in her non-fiction as you're likely aware. The subject is not even exhausted in her non-fiction. :)

Social and economic freedom.

So Objectivists are libertarians but libertarians aren't Objectivists? What does it take to be classified as a libertarian?

Wouldn't that make most people today cultists since they must believe some idea (likely not their own), and likely they believing it without thinking as deeply as Rand did?

And all of that is supposed to promote innovation? I don't think so. Seems to me innovation would sky rocket a lot more if people were free to use others inventions and improve on them immediately.

It's interesting that you brought up Objective reality as inconsistent with atheism. I'm actually debating this with the Christian egoist here (http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/...). Feel free to contribute.

Very well spoken!

Awe, thanks for leaving me another straw-man on your way out -- though not a very good one. That makes three for my collection.

You can use any invention for your own benefit, just not sell it to others unless you own the ip. Just as you can chop your own trees for wood, but not from the land of another. This has been patent law all along.

I'm out!