I think this is more a commentary on governmental policy than on the contrast between civilization and savagery. The Soviet Union was pursuing its own interests in what it perceived to be a rational manner. The problem was that their governance was based on false (irrational) principles or premises and so ultimately failed.

Then please take the time to explain and don't refer me to Rand's definitions as if they explain anything or are law. That is the fundamental question here: Are Rand's definitions accurate and descriptive of man? I can't reconcile Rand's hypotheses to my observations, thus I am obliged to call into question the validity of the hypothesis.

Well said and my thoughts exactly.

Confusing phrase, it must be put into context. Civilization is, fundamentally, the benefit of living as a society, as a tribe, as a pack, as a community. This last word may sound ill, but it´s true. No man is an island, since the very dawn of the homo sapiens we´ve depended on each other to survive, and today we depend not only on one and other but on the history of man. No one is free from men, we depend on each other. A capitalist entrerpreneur of horizontal monopoly needs blue collar workers just as much as an inventor of patents and new technologies needs investors, and vice versa. This is obvious, but some may have forgotten. The problem Ayn Rand states is the presence of the state and it´s inevitable corruption, both of the system and of men.

The "state" is an abstract concept, sometimes personafied buy leaders or rulers that seldom respond to interests much greater than their own. This is true, no matter what we may believe. Hitler had power because it was lent to him, not only because he achieved it. An Emperor has the power he is permitted to use, and once abuse takes place his days are numbered. This happens in all scales, for leaders are servants and not the other way around. The state, therefore, is a system of warranty and not an enforcer of dues. If ever a state confronts it´s own people and takes from them without return, then that state, whatever system it may be, has it´s days numbered as well.

We are a collectivity of individuals, and though I much rather like the metaphor of "a pack of wolves", some succesfull societies work more like "ant farms". What we don´t want to become is a "heard of sheep", individuality is crucial and despite us being part of a greater whole, we must also look out for ourselves. There shall always be spies, thieves and cheats to this ideal; and that´s why we must never subdue. "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you" is a paraphrase I´ve always liked, by the great Dave Mustaine. If we don´t demand our rightful returns and benefits, then we are responsible for the missuse of taxes, welfare and public investments. But Anarchy, I believe, is not the solution. There must be an equilibrium.

We are free as long as it is beneficial for our owners....

Thanks. To amplify, being a member of a tribe, clan or family was being a member of a collective, necessary for survival. The accouterments of civilization allowed a move out of the collective for the individual.

Actually what you said in these few sentences makes a hell of a lot more sense than anything else I've read. Thanks.

100,000 years ago, if you were going to survive, it was because you were a member in good standing of a tribe, clan, or family. The growth of Civilization toward private property provided the wherewithal to be independent. Ironic that recent technology, created by private individuals, if you will, is now the greatest threat to privacy.

I haven't but I will. Thanks.

Man by nature is a mix of rationality, emotion, and perhaps instinct. I'm a thinking man. I just can't look at happenstance and say "Wow, weren't we lucky all those elements just happened to fall into place the way they did?"

1. Who said man is "entirely emotion driven"?
2. Nor is man driven by instinct.
3. Nor does man learn only by experiences.
4. Being a mystic, you will necessarily disagree with Rand on many defiinitions. But this forum (given its origin ) should be a site for learning via reason and rationality.

Read more Rand, then you'll understand. (Hey, that rhymed.) Have you read For the New Intellectual or Virtue of Selfishness?

I'm not ignoring what Rand had to say on the matter. I'm disagreeing with her definition and premise when using the word savage. Unlike animals, Man is not entirely emotion driven, ever. Consider chapter 1 (maybe two as well) in 2001 Space Odyssey by Kubrick. Instinct driven man is endowed the gift of memory from the obelisk. He remembers what worked and what doesn't and it snowballs from there.

btw, I don't subscribe to evolution as the origin of man.

You both are not thinking fundamentally enough. You'll just have to read Rand. Even go into http://aynrandlexicon.com/ for definitions.

I suspect privacy is isolation. Now more than ever everything you say, do and even look at (web and google glasses) is being collected by someone for some reason. A hermit has privacy. Everyone else just has its semblance.

I have to agree with AJ, however. The question I pose is this: can a human being ever truly achieve pure irrationality, ie emotionalism? In an emotionally-charged argument, does the argument itself really sway the emotionally driven, or merely add fuel to an already burning fire?

Take PETA for example. To a member, someone wearing a fur coat incites them to outrage. To a normal person, they may not even notice, and if it is pointed out may not even care. Thus, I can't really give all that much credence to the concept that humans are at their base a purely emotional animal. To me, it is the other way around: we are logical creatures who are trying to learn how to control and harness our emotional aspects. To me, the savage is merely someone who chooses to embrace their emotional state - regardless of technological accommodation - and allows their passions to direct their actions.

I think her definition is a little to broad though. To e a "savage" is someone unencumbered by societal rules, living on his own terms with nature (or in spite of nature), and not necessarily part of a larger group (Huxley - Brave New World). Does this mean he's emotionally driven? Not necessarily. Humans are adaptable and that alone sets pure emotion aside in favor of thinking things through to survive.

You are correct up to your conclusion. "Savage" is a term Rand used to describe the person who does not go past his "emotional state" - who is ruled by the collective.

If you accept the premise that human beings evolved from the same stem, some of them MUST have gotten past their purely emotional state in order to push society along. And that would have continued throughout history!

Society as my evidence, I simply can't accept the idea that a human being is incapable of using their logical functions. Thus, my conclusion is that the term "savage" as you define it is either A) not applicable to man or B) is wholly derived from logical fallacy itself and is a specious term.

Sometimes, particularly today, anything you do - buy something using a debit card, post anything to the web, make a phone call, visit a doctor - information is being gathered about you. You can't always know who is gathering this information or what their intention is once they have it. Life, today in the US (I can only speak for here), is like living under a microscope with a faceless government waiting to pass judgment on whatever you do to suit their agenda. Force, as well as your awareness, need not be applied to take from you. I can almost guarantee that this forum is indexed in some government database.

I think this goes back to what tdechaine posted above. Are you revealing information about yourself by choice to those you wish to deal with, and for a purpose from which you gain, or is the information being taken from you forcefully by the government who intends to use it to harm you?

Very well said.

You don't need to be born outside of society or leave society. You always have a choice about whether or not you conform to the standards set by the group. You must live with the consequences of your choice (i.e., if you choose to break the law you may go to jail or suffer similar consequences), but it is still your choice whether or not to conform. I think this is what ameyer means by relationships being voluntary. If you disagree with the policies or standards to which you are expected to conform, you can always make another choice in protest.

Thank you for the additional information, Mike.

Jan