Why wasn't Eddie Willers invited to Galt's Gulch?


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, anthony said:

What and why is the puzzling, universal desire for intrinsic, innate, instinctive knowledge (and values)? i.e. Intrinsicism

A couple of interesting thoughts. Peter

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: The facts of reality Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:38:21 -0500. Ellen Moore wrote: "I am aware of the passages you quote.  But I do not understand them to say that you think they mean.  Somewhere in the seminars, Rand said, "'fact' is an epistemological tool."  Your quotes reinforce that meaning, i.e., when we say that something is a "fact", we are saying that our epistemological statement corresponds to the concretes in existence."

It has long been my understanding that Ayn Rand regarded "fact" as metaphysical concept, and "truth" as an epistemological one. A "fact" is that which is, regardless of anyone's knowledge. A "truth" is the identification (or "recognition") of a fact, and is therefore contextually dependent of a given state of knowledge. I believe Ellen is confusing the two concepts, as Rand used them. Ghs

From: PaleoObjectivist To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: RE: Re: Belief and Wisdom Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 11:00:33 EDT Mark Lewis wrote: >What if the belief is not "mystical" but just taken on faith?  The word mystical sends me places way beyond "belief."

Yes, the usual connotation of "mystical" is something akin to priests and fortune tellers, isn't it. However, the Objectivist definition of mysticism is quite broad. Rand in "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World" (~Philosophy, Who Needs It?~) said: "Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or ~against~ the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as 'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing'." (p. 62, ppbk)

>I get that objectivist canon allows for "rational beliefs."  What is it about the word knowledge that everyone seems to get what it means, but "belief" is in doubt?  What is the mirror (not antonym) to knowledge?

I don't know why "belief" is held in such doubtful status. When you consider that "I think you are correct" and "I believe you are correct," are both colloquial ways of saying that the speaker considers that another person is likely to be correct, it makes no sense to me that one is accepted and the other looked at askance.

Except...as noted previously, "belief" is generic, while "rational belief" and "irrational belief" are species of "belief." I think that some people are ~so~ put off by the species "irrational belief" that they consider the genus "belief" to be irremediably tainted by it -- almost as if the legitimate species "rational belief" either did not exist or was insignificant in comparison. This seems at least close to the Fallacy of the Frozen Abstraction, which Rand wrote about in "Collectivized Ethics" (~The Virtue of Selfishness~). Also see my essay on this fallacy, posted at http://members.aol.com/REBissell/indexmm.html Best 2 all, Roger Bissell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found an old letter of mine from Atlantis where I wrote this nearly 20 years ago. To what degree do we start causality rolling? Peter

My quote: Animal behaviorists continue to find a few more examples of thinking that exemplifies conceptual thought in the higher “conscious animal beings.” But I caution, do not confuse brief moments of supposed conceptual thought in “conscious animal beings” or any minimalist passing down of culture, as significant. As far as the animals go, that is all there is. They are only, to a degree, random in their actions.

Does the fact that "conscious animal beings" do not always strictly react to causality mean they ARE random in some sense? Yes. And Humans stride "one giant leap" beyond strict causality and randomness. “Volitionally Conscious Beings” choose to put forth the effort to understand reality, so we are in a class by ourselves. I do not mean to imply telekinesis when I say, “human thought” is a motive power. Humans are self-movers. We can step out of the way of the billiard ball or plot how to change its course. And if we so choose, we can start the billiard balls of causality rolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, anthony said:

"It [instinct] is also intrinsic, meaning that even an animal raised in isolation will perform the behavior..." (M. Sipes' article)

This is more for the reader than for Tony.

I just hate it when wrong statements are put out as facts, but they are are declared right with sanctimony.

That statement quoted is wrong. Just flat-out wrong. It's about as wrong as it can be.

There are cases where it is right, but the term instinct would probably not apply (like heartbeat), but the rest is wrong.

Even Rand's essay The Comprachicos touches on this.

But wait.

It gets even worse.

If an instinct is behavior that automatically deals with the environment, but the living creature is raised without dealing with the environment, what the hell are we talking about? It might be something, but it's not instinct. Instinct needs the environment involved by definition.

And to repeat, newborns and the very young have no indications of instincts they later develop. Why? Because newborns and the very young are really dumb. :) Their brains and nervous systems are still developing.

But I don't feel like arguing about this since the way the facts derived from animal lab studies will be misinterpreted. (Well, just one for the curious, but do your own search. Look into studies where cats are raised in total darkness until the growth cut-off point does not allow certain instincts dealing with space to develop.)

Let's not forget about the old saw that will come up that people who don't think Rand was right about instincts are collectivists, intrinsicists, evaders, etc. (Asked suspiciously, "Why are you so hot and heavy for humans to have instincts? Hmmmmm? Who and what is to gain by that? Hmmmmm?... :) )

We're back to the internal combustion engine not working because it doesn't eat alfalfa thing. And those who believe otherwise do not want humans to have a form of locomotion, horses, other than their feet.

The pisser is that there is no way to evaluate facts and call that rational without looking at said facts. And it's really bad when a person just spouts off nonsense like in that quote and calls that a fact.  

If one does not identify a fact correctly, one cannot evaluate it correctly.

Now we are into the brave new discourse world:

argumentum ad nationalgeographicum ad absurdum ad nauseam

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, anthony said:

The properly scientific approach lays out the criteria: What is instinctive and what is learned?

I can't remember when we first started digging into Oxytocin on this forum, but I do remember thinking that a lot of interest slash funding was likely to come gushing henceforth -- further use of the animal model where neuroscience meets genetics meets mice. 

So, I was not too surprised the last time I searched "mice oxytocin maternal brain study" with  Google Scholar's database. The results at the link are post-2017.

Research surprises or surmises confirmed? I am relatively ignorant and patchily-informed, but one study I stumbled on recently helped me get a sketch of one research "edge" or facet: Sexually dimorphic oxytocin receptor-expressing neurons in the preoptic area of the mouse brain. The extra-alluring titles are more recent, wouldn't you know? Eg, Neural circuitry for maternal oxytocin release induced by infant cries & Oxytocin, neural plasticity, and social behavior

-- as pertain to Objectivist concerns, that human "pre-wired" instincts provide much if any foundation for the full suite of human behaviours, I think of the huge brain of the human newborn and of that newborn's 'behavioural repertoire' ... and the bonding, education and ethical training to come. By the time I can admit or claim a child is willful, has an animating spirit, has a particular character or personality, has decisions to make of utmost gravity, the "mouse model" fails for me.  

Meaning the primitive drives and behaviours that are maintained in the electrochemical computer of our brain-body are hugely augmented by human-only learned behaviours and by an apparent superceding will, leaving cognitive apparatus an order of magnitude larger than our great ape cousins.

Rand-influenced folks can talk about instinctive, primitive drives that lurk in the psyches of humans -- it's fun and always liable to raise a disagreement even if only over terms and scope.

I'd say a fair number of Randians believe that putative primitive psyches have a certain motive power and believe that humans have an executive that daily overrules drives and vetoes behaviour. 

Tony, be of stout heart.  

Edited by william.scherk
Orthographic dictates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Eddie Willers wasn't invited to Galt's Gulch because Rand didn't give him a Galt's Gulch type name.

--Brant

Randt Haede

that might have worked

Glad that someone finally agrees with me on something! Thanks,Randter.

Dauncee Fatale

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I can't remember when we first started digging into Oxytocin on this forum

William,

I know when I did.

It was around 2013 or so. I started writing about DARPA studying storytelling in order to make weapons out of them (the Narrative Networks program), allegedly for conflict reduction, but guess what? There are more sinister uses too (like in propaganda). 

I focused on one of the scientists in the NN program, Paul Zak, who later wrote a bestseller using his research, The Moral Molecule: The New Science of What Makes Us Good or Evil (this book went through several subtitle changes: (The Moral Molecule: How Trust Works and The Moral Molecule: The Source of Love and Prosperity), and then another bestseller where he took his research into the corporate market and now makes a ton of money telling corporations how to make people trust them (even if they shouldn't) :) with practically guaranteed results, Trust Factor: The Science of Creating High-Performance Companies. (Both links are referral links.)

I posted the following video several times.

 

Up to Zak's studies, in popular culture, oxytocin was mostly considered a female hormone that guaranteed a close bond between her and her infant(s).

Now it is seen as one of the main ingredients in the positive social glue mix. As the story shows, when mixed with the secretion of cortisol (the mix is usually released in response to distress signals), it causes powerful tearjerking emotions.

In his early research, Paul had his wife apply an oxytocin compound he made directly to his skin and it was instant erection no matter what he was thinking. And his thinking, of course, turned to mush and lust shortly thereafter. :) 

As I was looking for the video and Paul to get the details right, I came across a very interesting article from 2013 about how oxytocin can cause future fear and anxiety from past negative social encounters (like being bullied). It helps produce a molecule (ERK) that does the dirty work. Love Hormone Oxytocin Can Cause Emotional Pain, New Study Says.

I didn't dig into this aspect any deeper than the article, though. So I don't know yet if (and how) this dark side of oxytocin has been weaponized or used in marketing. I bet it has, though.

Incidentally, I am going through a very interesting course right now on story: The Magical Science of Storytelling Course by David JP Phillips. Oxytocin is one of the lessons.

Michael

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2021 at 3:50 AM, william.scherk said:

Rand-influenced folks can talk about instinctive, primitive drives that lurk in the psyches of humans -- it's fun and always liable to raise a disagreement even if only over terms and scope.

I'd say a fair number of Randians believe that putative primitive psyches have a certain motive power and believe that humans have an executive that daily overrules drives and vetoes behaviour. 

Tony, be of stout heart.  

Hi William. We cannot accept this behaviour!  I go out of my way to act with the appropriate behavior in an American site and another Englishman comes in to show me up. Behaviour, I ask you!

What's all this: a jump sideways from the non-apparent human instincts into the very valid effects of ... brain chemicals? Explain the point of that please.

First, to separate our terms, instincts from "drives" - one can't lump them. I read the latter was a psychologically-influenced introduction. Psychologists/behaviorists too were uncomfortable with and having great trouble with finding/sustaining 'instincts' in humans. So arrived at the human 'drive':

 

Instinct, an inborn impulse or motivation to action typically performed in response to specific external stimuli. Today instinct is generally described as a stereotyped, apparently unlearned, genetically determined behaviour pattern. (Brittanica sp.insists)
 
Drive, in psychology, an urgent basic need pressing for satisfaction, usually rooted in some physiological tension, deficiency, or imbalance (e.g., hunger and thirst) and impelling the organism to action.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2021 at 10:41 PM, Peter said:

A couple of interesting thoughts. Peter

 

I don't know why "belief" is held in such doubtful status. When you consider that "I think you are correct" and "I believe you are correct," are both colloquial ways of saying that the speaker considers that another person is likely to be correct, it makes no sense to me that one is accepted and the other looked at askance.

Except...as noted previously, "belief" is generic, while "rational belief" and "irrational belief" are species of "belief." I think that some people are ~so~ put off by the species "irrational belief" that they consider the genus "belief" to be irremediably tainted by it -- almost as if the legitimate species "rational belief" either did not exist or was insignificant in comparison. This seems at least close to the Fallacy of the Frozen Abstraction, which Rand wrote about in "Collectivized Ethics" (~The Virtue of Selfishness~). Also see my essay on this fallacy, posted at http://members.aol.com/REBissell/indexmm.html Best 2 all, Roger Bissell

That's apt for a debate I was having, where I compared Christian 'belief' to 'conviction' and how outcomes-in-action *may* be the same for Objectivists and the religious if starting from shared conviction in good qualities, like self-responsibility, self-reliance and political freedoms.

Conviction I see as rational belief, but "belief" has been hijacked, tainted as Roger said. No matter, one can take it back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, anthony said:

What's all this: a jump sideways from the non-apparent into the very apparent - human instincts into ... brain chemicals?

Is there a subtle difference in the following instance? You can “train” an animal, but in the same sense, can a human “train” another human?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Peter said:

Is there a subtle difference in the following instance? You can “train” an animal, but in the same sense, can a human “train” another human?  

How, by drugging the human into subservience with chemicals? I suppose. Punishment and reward? Trained/learned behavior I treat as the same category, the capability to recognize and imitate the actions of other animals to improve skills (cubs, kittens, etc. mock-fighting and pretend-hunting) and learn new ones, indicates mammals, and birds somewhat, are also adept at being 'trainable' by humans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anthony said:
 
Drive, in psychology, an urgent basic need pressing for satisfaction, usually rooted in some physiological tension, deficiency, or imbalance (e.g., hunger and thirst) and impelling the organism to action.

"In a fundamental sense, stillness is the antithesis of life". AR

The drive to life, that goal-directed, self-generated, self-directed action, which is non-purposive for organisms and lower animal forms, part-purposive for higher mammals, and fully purposive for humans is the consuming drive contra "stillness" for all species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Peter said:

Is there a subtle difference in the following instance? You can “train” an animal, but in the same sense, can a human “train” another human?  

Peter,

You're starting to see it.

:)

Of course a human can “train” another human.

Bone up on crowd psychology some time for the easiest example under the sun.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, anthony said:

"In a fundamental sense, stillness is the antithesis of life". AR

Rocks are "still", and considered "not alive." Yet, the atoms that make up the rock are in constant motion. Does that mean that atoms are "alive"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Rocks are "still", and considered "not alive." Yet, the atoms that make up the rock are in constant motion. Does that mean that atoms are "alive"?

 

No, only that stillness is the antithesis to existence too--that is more fundamental. 

--Brant

when you stop moving your atoms don't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

Rocks are "still", and considered "not alive." Yet, the atoms that make up the rock are in constant motion. Does that mean that atoms are "alive"?

 

A good instance of reductive-materialism. Life begins at the level of biological cell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Of course a human can “train” another human.

I think there is a difference, but I just can't name it. Resistance is futile. Human, you will open up a can of Alpo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Peter said:
14 hours ago, anthony said:

What's all this: a jump sideways from the non-apparent into the very apparent - human instincts into ... brain chemicals?

Is there a subtle difference in the following instance? You can “train” an animal, but in the same sense, can a human “train” another human?  

Spring training!

-- to answer Tony's question, I'd suggest that the "mouse model" maternal behaviour findings I cited above are interesting in and of themselves; meaning they may in the end allow therapeutic relief or cure of human problems -- chiefly post-partum depression.

Potty-training!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
15 hours ago, Peter said:

Is there a subtle difference in the following instance? You can “train” an animal, but in the same sense, can a human “train” another human?  

[...]

Of course a human can “train” another human.

Bone up on crowd psychology some time for the easiest example under the sun

Crowd psychology "training" versus mob psychology (?) ... or "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds."

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2021 at 8:46 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 4/10/2021 at 6:50 PM, william.scherk said:

I can't remember when we first started digging into Oxytocin on this forum

William,

I know when I did.

It was around 2013 or so. I started writing about DARPA studying storytelling in order to make weapons out of them (the Narrative Networks program), allegedly for conflict reduction, but guess what? There are more sinister uses too (like in propaganda). 

Intriguing "mouse model" research keeps coming out -- I caught wind of this while trawling ScienceDaily.com's feed: Smell you later: Exposure to smells in early infancy can modulate adult behaviorScientists explore how 'imprinting' on some smells by newborn mice affects adult social behaviors

The gist is that the researchers believe they have discovered a new mechanism-- and the discovery has implications for human neurodevelopment. I quote from the mildly gushing end of the article. The location of the study itself is here

Quote

So, what do these results say about the human brain?

First, the results of the study open many research questions for the functioning of the human brain and behavior. Like the critical period in the mouse olfactory system, can we find such a period in humans, possibly in other sensory systems? The way the mouse brain chooses imprinted memory over innate response, do we humans also follow similar decision-making processes?

Secondly, this study also suggests that improper sensory inputs may cause neuro-developmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and attachment disorders (AD). Oxytocin is widely used for treating ASD symptoms in adults. However, Dr. Nishizumi says, "our study indicates that oxytocin treatment in early neonates is more effective than after the critical period in improving the impairment of social behavior. Thus, oxytocin treatment of infants will be helpful in preventing the ASD and AD, which may open a new therapeutic procedure for neurodevelopmental disorders."

This study adds valuable new insights to our understanding of decision making and mind struggle in humans and reveals new research paths in the neuroscience of all types of imprinting.

I did not know that Oxytocin was prescribed for adults with ASD and AD. Diggings ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/3/2021 at 8:12 AM, Strictlylogical said:

You have it backwards and your fabrications, straw men, mischaracterizations, and intellectual dishonesty are so blatantly on display that it beggars comprehension.

Many people have heard the term “straw man fallacy” but what does it mean? And there is also a more obscure term called, "affirming the consequent" or is it “consequence?” and what about “piffle!” Peter

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: Re: LOGIC:  The Straw Man Fallacy (Was: Re: ATL: Re: Shooting and Looting: It's what warriors do. Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:38:13 -0600 Sandra wrote: "...is that what YOU call it? *testing the limits of my assertions*, I saw debate bully Bill Maher use the same technique last night on POLITICALLY INCORRECT on Daniel Pipes who I had greatly enjoyed watching on C-Span earlier in the week. Of course, no real discourse was possible.

"*The straw man fallacy is committed when someone attacks a weakened version of an opponent's position rather than the genuine article.* ARGUMENT AND PERSUASION, Nancy Cavender & Howard Kahane.

"*We commit the FALLACY OF STRAW MAN when we mischaracterize our opponent's position in order to make it easier to refute. LOGIC AND MR. LIMBAUGH, Ray Perkins, Jr. "To repeat, using it is intellectually dishonest and makes discourse impossible."

Sandra, I'm afraid that even now you don't get the point. I understood -- and I was apparently wrong about this -- your argument to be, in effect: "If X is a long established tradition among military conquerors, then it is useless to protest or condemn X."  Your particulars referred to "shooting and looting," and I simply instantiated "rape" instead.

This is a very common and effective argumentative tool, and it is perfectly legitimate. Indeed, Ayn Rand uses it continuously in her arguments against altruism: e.g., "If you believe that man does not have the right to exist for his own sake, then the logical implications of this position are as follows...."

This is not a "straw man fallacy," or indeed a fallacy of any kind. Rather, it simply points to the logical implications of an adversary's position and tests the limits of her assertion, in the sense that it challenges that person either to accept the logical consequences of her own principle, however unsavory, or to qualify or repudiate that principle. (This argumentative tool is also very effective against various forms of utilitarianism, and is commonly used by philosophers.)

Merely because a person does not articulate all of the logical implications of her own principle does not mean that an adversary who points out some of those implications thereby commits "the straw man fallacy." It is perfectly reasonable to argue, "If you accept X, then it logically follows that you should also embrace Y. Do you? And if not, why not?" My mistake was in misinterpreting the principle that you were defending, not in my method of argument. Ghs

From: "William Dwyer" To: Subject: ATL: Objectivism versus Libertarianism (Was "RE:  Power trips) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:38:58 -0800. Ellen Moore wrote, "Libertarianism is NOT a direct implication of the Objectivist Politics. If it were, libertarianism would not court and include all the irrationality of its opposing factions."

This does not follow.  It does not follow that if libertarianism were a direct implication of Objectivism (or of Objectivist Politics), then libertarianism would not include opposing factions.  After all, not every advocate of laissez-faire capitalism is an Objectivist, but that does not mean that Objectivism does not imply laissez-faire capitalism. Similarly, the fact that not every libertarian is an Objectivist does not mean that Objectivism does not imply libertarianism. Behind Ellen's reasoning is a fundamental error in logic.  She is saying that if P implies Q (that if Objectivism implies libertarianism), then Q implies P (then libertarianism implies Objectivism -- i.e., that all libertarians must be Objectivists). This is a standard logical fallacy, called "affirming the consequent." What does follow from "P implies Q" -- from Objectivism's implying libertarianism -- is that "not-Q implies not-P" -- that if someone is not a libertarian, then he is not an Objectivist. In the same way, if Objectivism implies laissez-faire capitalism, then if someone is not an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, then he is not an Objectivist; but it doesn't follow that if he is not an Objectivist, then he is not an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism. Bill

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Notes to Bill, Victor, Christian Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 13:16:35 -0600. Ellen Moore wrote: "Bill, "You may be right about the form of logical fallacy.  But, the thing is that your substitution of the meaning of terms does not fit with my understanding of the meaning of the terms.  Content and context is the crucial issue."

Ellen apparently thinks that chanting a word like "context" will render her immune to any and all criticisms. But this fondness for word magic simply won't do. Here is what Ellen originally wrote: "Libertarianism is NOT a direct implication of the Objectivist Politics. If it were, libertarianism would not court and include all the irrationality of its opposing factions."

Bill correctly identified the fallacy in this argument as follows: "Behind Ellen's reasoning is a fundamental error in logic.  She is saying that if P implies Q (that if Objectivism implies libertarianism), then Q implies P (then libertarianism implies Objectivism -- i.e., that all libertarians must be Objectivists). This is a standard logical fallacy, called "affirming the consequent."

Perhaps Ellen would care to explain how Bill has failed to understand either the content or context of her argument, which is a textbook example of the fallacy that Bill explained. Ellen refers to the "libertarian kidnapping of the IOPF principle...." I assume she is referring to the non-initiation of force principle; if so, even a cursory study of the history of libertarian thought will reveal many instances where this principle was articulated and defended long before Ayn Rand happened on the scene.

For example, in the 19th Century, Auberon Herbert wrote: "Nobody has the moral right to seek his own advantage by force. That is the one unalterable, inviolable condition of a true society."

Like Herbert Spencer and other libertarians of his day, Herbert insisted that physical force is morally legitimate only when used in self-defense: "[A]s long as men...are willing to make use of [force] for their own ends, or to make use of fraud, which is only force in disguise...so long we must use force to restrain force. That is the one and only one rightful employment of force...force in the defense of the plain simple rights of property...in a word, of all the rights of self-ownership -- force used defensively against force used aggressively."

In her many absurd postings on this subject, Ellen has consistently failed to understand the nature of concept formation, and she has just as consistently dropped context when considering the concept "libertarian." As Chris Sciabarra and others have attempted to explain to her in the past (to no avail), the concept "libertarian" *classifies* people according to their political beliefs which, *in this context,* is the essential characteristic in question. In 1791, Wilhelm von Humboldt formulated the essence of libertarianism as follows:

"[I]n order to provide for the security of its citizens, the state must prohibit or restrict such actions, relating directly to the agents only, as imply in their consequences the infringement of others' rights, or encroach on their freedom or property without their consent or against their will....Beyond this every limitation of personal freedom lies outside the limits of state action."

Humboldt, Herbert, and other classical liberals often justified such principles in a manner very similar to Rand. They argued that an individual has the moral right to pursue happiness in his own way, according to his own judgment, without coercive interference by others, so long as he respects the equal rights of others. They thus maintained that the initiation of force should be banned, and that force may be used only for the purpose of self-defense (including restitution).

It always helps to read a little before accusing people of "kidnapping" (i.e., expropriating) ideas from others. If anything it was Ayn Rand who, in this case at least, failed to give appropriate credit to her classical liberal predecessors. Ghs

From: Ellen Moore To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Reply to George Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:10:36 -0600.  Piffle!  Sophistic piffle!! Libertarianism ideologies come in many forms.  It is only within Rand's Objectivism that the non-initiation of physical force principle has been presented with a rational and objective contextual foundation.  Modern libertarians try to use it while ignoring its only objective foundation -- a contradiction. I'm too busy to offer more argument at the present time. Ellen M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now