You bring up a highly unlikely example: "You know that someone did not commit a crime such as murder because you were with them, but they are the spouse of your best friend? So, if you tell the truth, you subject them to shame, but if you bear false witness, you save them?" Then they will be subjected to shame. I will not spare anyone the consequences of their own actions any more than John Galt would have. I know you thought you could trip me up, Mike, in the same way that the AS characters were tripped up, but I assure you, you cannot.

Mike, you are really grasping at straws now. If you are going to choose to tear down the legal foundation of Western civilization, go ahead. There is not much left to tear down anyway. However, your arguments are getting so pedantic as to not be worth my, or anyone else's time. I know you think your Objectivism is a superior moral code. Try running for office and governing with that code. Christians often get the stereotype of "shoving their values down someone else's throat". You do that with Objectivist values. Right as you may be, you are not winning any converts to your side because you are violating your own Objectivist code. You are FORCING compliance with your views like the worst of thought police.

Moreover, Mike, you may think you know my moral code. You do not.

Regarding the "inconsistency of ethical and political subjectivism", Mike, you fail to appreciate how limited a single human being is regarding his/her effects on government actions. It is not a matter of being inconsistent. It is a matter of realizing one's limitations. You seem to know a lot about Clint Eastwood movies. Well, a "man has to know his limitations". My limitation is that I am not going to be able to convince everyone of the correctness of how I live my life, let alone convince them of how they should live their lives. We all have a finite amount of energy, and I should not be wasting that time on efforts that cannot be in my best interest.

That is nonsense. Only a blind Christian could claim that the Ten Commandment are non-contradictory. First of all, you do not even know what the (so-called) "Ten" commandments are: they are variously given twice in most editions and variously stated in different versions. To be specific, what if your Father and Mother order you to kill an innocent person? What if the only way to avoid killing were to bear false witness? (You know that someone did not commit a crime such as murder because you were with them, but they are the spouse of your best friend? So, if you tell the truth, you subject them to shame, but if you bear false witness, you save them?) On and on and on... The Ten Commandments are simple statements for simple people. I will not even go into the problem of "killing" non-Jews. Thou shalt not kill does not apply to your own people. Remember: "You shall not suffer a witch to live."

1) I can't turn a blind eye to abortion or robbing of banks or any other immorality.
2) However, I personally am quite limited in my response, even if I wanted to do something about it.
3) The government response is independent of mine.
4) I am quite satisfied with my moral code, and it is based on a solid standard.

Do you have the right to impose your will on a bank robber, preventing their choice of action? You seem not to understand the real issue here. The question is not abortion, at all. It objectivism versus absolutism versus subjectivism. Your statements so far seem to endorse subjectivism: morality for you is not morality for me; reality for you is not reality for me. Of course, that means that taxation for you is not taxation for me, so if the government if the government seizes your business, that is hard luck for you, but not for me. Of course, I reject that. But I am a consistent Objectivist. That is why I brought the subject up here in this thread of the inconsistency of ethical and political subjectivism which seems to be implicitly supported by some regular posters here. In fact, I think that "they know not what they do" i.e., they have compartmentalized, unintegrated personal beliefs. Ultimately - in the context of The Movie - that opens the door to the government, for instance, blackmailing Hank Rearden because he allowed a contradiction in his moral code, assuming that sex is evil and Dagny would be shamed by the revelation of their affair. Dagny, of course, being a consistent Objectivist had a different view, entirely.

Objectivist never considered truth as a function of arithmetic; and neither does science. Whether anyone agrees with me or not is not an evaluation of the truth of falsehood of my assertions. In point of fact, I have made no assertions. I only asked why, if you consider abortion to be the taking of a human life, you can turn a blind eye to it, and say that it is none of the government's business? That is why I recast the discussion to be about robbing banks. This is not about abortion or about robbing banks. It is about the objectivity of morality. You seem to endorse that. You seem to allow that some circumstances exist in which an otherwise immoral act (bank robbery; abortion) would be permitted or excused, even if not encouraged. Most people who are opposed to abortion and bank robbery take an ABSOLUTIST stance. But absolutism is a philosophical error. And so you seem to agree.

Your libertarianism deviates from anything like Objectivism. I grant fully that you have many valuable and important insights, opinions, observations, and conjectures. Within the context here, though, your call (from _The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch_ for a limitless horizon violates expectations here in both directions: Objectivist and Christian. My basic question is one that you skirt in COGIGG: by what standard does one choose? You offer an ethnography of law. I can accept that in _that_ context. In _this_ context, it fails to address the issue: If right and wrong exist; and if you know right; why would you turn a laissez faire shrug toward evil as not your business?

I am opposed to robbing banks, but I have no problem if you do it. The question is very complicated and different people have different standards in our society. Banks are creatures of the government. They profit from a corrupt system which they created. No truly free market banks exist issuing gold or silver warehouse receipts. They all deal in unconstitutional Federal Reserve Notes. Moreover, all banks are insured for losses from robberies. They do not care if you take their cash. Cash in the drawers is a microscopic fraction of their assets.

Of course, if you rob a bank, someone might get hurt or killed. So, there is that risk of unjustly injuring an innocent person.

And the basic problem is that the money is not yours. Some people argue that, but I do not. I would not impose my standards on someone else.
-------------------------------------------------

Lest anyone be confused, the above was a rhetorical reply. None of the responses so far in the tet-a-tet between brenner and robbie actually addressed the issue.

In my mind, I view my equipment purchases in the same way as you suggest, conscious1978. It's also a form of a recycling program. I buy used lab equipment for pennies on the dollar. The students either repair the equipment to serve its intended purpose or cannibalize it to serve some of our R&D goals. Either way, it's win-win for all involved.

JB, I wouldn't characterize the actions you describe as altruism or charity. They are more like an investment or longer term trade with and in those with similar values. You don't do it because you "should" or based on a low possibility of a "return". Admirable.

Thanks, Technocracy.

Crap - forgot one of the important bits....

I am not being self contradictory by not interfering with you doing an action that does not impinge upon me.

You are PROJECTING your contradiction with my moral code onto me as it being my action.

When in fact it is your action and therefore YOURS not mine.

Self contradiction only applies if I am not adhering to MY code.

Objectivism is based far more on an individual moral code than the rest of "society" is.

I live MY moral code.

Yours will be different, after all we are different individuals. We will have "rules" we both agree on. We will also have rules that are not in common, meaning we do not necessarily agree on.

Any action that falls into that category for us presents the possibility of the outcome in your title.

If our definitions of murder are not congruent, it will come out that way.

Abortion is one of the most controversial issues of our time.

I do not include it in my definition of murder however.

I am against it, but you might not be, as is your right.

I do not have the right or responsibility to dictate your choices in life to you unless they directly impact me.

I think abortion is wrong and having or performing one will harm you in ways you cannot know going forward, but that is your choice to make.

Do not expect me to approve of it, perform it, or fund it for you. If you want it, you own it, pay for it yourself.

Furthermore, you may have noticed that not one person in the Gulch has yet gone into this post yet and agreed with you rather than me on this point. In addition, in posting this comment, I am actually encouraging such debate, because in this argument, what you have made is an unreasonable extrapolation of what I and others have said. It would be very easy to start throwing out a few expletives right now, but I will refrain from doing so.

"Broadly speaking, the free exercise of liberty is a limitless horizon, if you have the courage and capacity to take action, accept the risk and suffer accordingly." [COGIGG, on 'Competence', p. 17]

Mike, I thoroughly addressed the issue in your first point at the start of the blog. I am in charge of my own life and, to a certain extent, those in my immediate family. Everyone else's business is just that - everyone else's business. I have enough trouble to deal with on my own, not to mention when it is compounded with needless attacks like this on my character. You have put words into my mouth that I did not utter and would never utter. You have shown an occasional habit of doing that for a number of people during my time in the Gulch. I am now going to say in public what I addressed to you privately yesterday. You have crossed the line of propriety. I tried to deal with you generously yesterday and frankly half-expected an apology. Now you are just being someone not worthy of my further responses.

Moreover, you are confusing the role of government with the role of an individual in this case. What I have to say about condoning or not condoning any immoral act is not particularly relevant to the argument, because I do not have the ability (or the desire) to use force to make you or anyone else comply.

The vast majority of my "altruism" is the purchase of equipment to allow my students to accomplish our mutual goals. This prevents me from having to write grant proposals (i.e. be a moocher) and allows me to exchange value for value even in what some would consider charity. Because I know each of the people who I give "charity" to personally, I know that they share my values and are worthy of my effort. In fact, it doesn't even seem like charity; I call it training future Galts. I have already gotten many rewards and will get more.

When someone I know asks for my advice or help regarding adoption, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc., I have helped. Some may view this as altruism to be condemned. I do not. In each case I have helped someone who shared my value of not wanting to be a moocher get to a point of self-sufficiency. In each case, I have been rewarded with some sort of value of value.