What's Happening?

[George H. Smith]

Peter:

I am going to attempt, a final time, to try to have a debate with you.

Boy, are you asking for it. Do you have next of kin that you would like us to notify after you go completely insane? 8-)

[Selene]

Peter:

I am going to attempt, a final time, to try to have a debate with you.

Boy, are you asking for it. Do you have next of kin that you would like us to notify after you go completely insane? 8-)

George:

Hey, I'm Italian!

We always sit facing the door in restaurants, barbershops etc.

Seems to have a direct correlation with longevity.

Peter already made the mistake of assuming that I would be terrified to walk at 2 AM in Baltimore.

Lol.

Adam

[rhartford]

About my questions regarding "justice agencies," you say:

.... after you answer . . . as [the] problem pertains to a government, I'll be happy to take a stab at it. We can then compare answers and see which is more satisfactory.

I don't know the answers, but let me rephrase the problem in a neutral manner, using "political institutions" as surrogate for either "governments" or "justice agencies." Then let's see how far we can get together and where our views might diverge.

1. The goal of political institutions should be to aim at the ideal of "unfailingly [protecting] political freedoms and unfailingly [constraining] those who would violate a political freedom."

2. In a political conflict, rational egoism provides the necessary foundation for a political standard to determine which action of a conflict is the political freedom and which action would violate that freedom.

3. The function of the political institutions is to apply adequate force, or its threat, to ensure the identified political freedom in a conflict is protected.

4. The political institutions should make their policies and practices thoroughly open so that others can assess whether the institutions are acting in accord with step 1 or not.

5. If others judge one of the political institutions to be acting in violation of step 1, the others should alter or abolish it.

6. Performing steps 1-5 is more likely to be successful if resolution of each type of political conflict is the responsibility of one among the several political institutions. Each political institution should have a clear appellate procedure, a mechanism for policy alteration by voluntary means, and as a last resort step 5 could be implemented by force.

I used the plural, political institutions, throughout because the complexity of potential conflict would require either "governments" or "justice agencies" to assign original responsibility to specialized institutions and appellate responsibility to other institutions. I have a sense that, in the United States, movement forward to achieving the ideal of Step 1 is more likely via action to change governments to accord with the ideal, but I have neither proof nor stronger arguments.

I look forward to a response, and will at least monitor this thread, but don't think I have the time and knowledge to pursue these issues much further. I do however look forward to your book dealing with these issues.

[Brant Gaede]

George, it is one thing ro have written about phbilosophy from a to z, it's another to embrace a philosophy a to z.

So if I don't embrace a given philosophy from A to Z, that makes me anti-philosophical "at the core"? Very strange. How about if I embrace the philosophy from A to Y? Would I still be anti-philosophical, but not quite so much?

Ghs

Not a given philosophy necessarily. Your own philosophy, whatever it is. You like most libertarians seem to see societies, real and imagined, primarily through a political-economic lens and have little use for the metaphysical-epistemological-ethical stuff as a grounding for your explications. Of course there is an ethical tie to politics: it's wrong to violate someone else's rights, etc. I don't have your very fine book of essays on hand--about atheism, Ayn Rand and other heresies--and maybe I've forgotten something you wrote there that contradicts my little thesis. I'd certainly be happy to be proven wrong about it all, but in the meantime you're strictly a libertarian to me qua philosophy.

--Brant

PS: I hereby disown this post. I leave it up to illustrate ignorant crap.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Well, George, your post 183 was a partial ad hominem against Peter and your 155 almost 100%. You seem to have missed my point that essentially he is almost 100% ad h. against you.

--Brant

I asked you to identify even one ad hominem argument that I have ever used against Peter. So quit with the percentages and show me one.

Ghs

A general ad hominem assault is not an ad h. argument?

He does the same to you, but deeper.

--Brant

Calling someone a "bad" name is not an ad hominem argument. It may be an evaluation, a personal opinion, a fact of reality, etc. -- but it is not an argument of any kind.

When you lump all this, incorrectly, under the label "ad hominem," you imply that there is something inherently wrong, say, with calling someone a "fool." But there really are fools out there.

Ghs

Ah, this is irony for me. You see this is just the argument I had with Jeff Riggenbach right after 9/11 and my position is your present one and I converted to Jeff's, but not before he got royally pissed off.

In terms of any particular argument I don't see any agumentum ad hominem from you, George. Fact. But people going back and forth at each other on a personal level displace rational argument and we can call that ad hominem assaults as opposed to arguments as such. Not that Peter doesn't deserve it considering that any kind of death threat, even coated with humor, is the worst kind of ad hominem.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

George, some Rand yes, some Rand no. If you are an Objectivist, say so. If not, is it just because you are an anarchist and she is not?

--Brant

I don't call myself an "Objectivist" largely out of respect for Rand, because she would not have approved of an anarchist using that label. I do sometimes refer to myself as a "Neo-Objectivist," however.

I also disagree with Rand on some other issues, but the philosophical disagreements are relatively minor, and many of the more serious ones pertain to her historical interpretations, especially in the history of philosophy. I also have some serious disgreements with her views on psychology.

I think Rand's best work by far was in ethics and epistemology, and I am pretty much a plumb-line Objectivist in those areas. Indeed, for the 16 years that I lectured on rights theory for IHS conferences (attended mainly by grad students), I strongly recommended "Man's Rights" as the best brief treatment of natural rights ever written. And I did this despite pressure from "above" not to mention Rand, because she was not academically respectable. I replied that I wasn't academically respectable either, and that I didn't give a shit about such matters. If Rand's arguments were good, then that's all that mattered to me. And I got my way.

I frankly don't trust people who claim to agree 100 percent with everything Rand said.

Ghs

Opps! This is what I get for reading your posts on this thread backwards and not in the order posted. My apologies.

--Brant

[Selene]

Yep. Suffer fools kindly, but their claim may still be valid.

Ad hominem:

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.

Therefore A's claim is false.

The ravings of the lunatic, the drunk or the psychotic can still be 100% true.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Selene

[George H. Smith]

I don't know the answers, but let me rephrase the problem in a neutral manner, using "political institutions" as surrogate for either "governments" or "justice agencies." Then let's see how far we can get together and where our views might diverge....

Offhand, I can't think of any serious disagreements with your six steps, though I would phrase some of the issues differently.

I don't have a forthcoming book that addresses these issues, but I did discuss some of them many years ago (1979) in two lengthy articles:

"Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market."

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_4/3_4_4.pdf

and

"Justice Entrepreneurship Revisited: A Reply to Critics"

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_4/3_4_8.pdf

(The first of these articles was reprinted in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies.)

I look forward to reading your article in JARS.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

The ravings of the lunatic, the drunk or the psychotic can still be 100% true.

Absolutely correct. As illustrated by Mel Gibson's character in "Conspiracy Theory," it's possible that someone afflicted with paranoia is really being persecuted.

But whether one should take the lunatic, drunk, or psychotic seriously enough to consider his arguments is another matter. This is a matter of credibility, not validity.

Suppose a person who is "crazy" by almost anyone's standard claims to be able to prove the existence of God, and he presents me with a 500 page manuscript, much of it filled with symbolic logic, where his definitive "proof" is presented.

Of course, I would not regard this person as credible, so I would not plow though his manuscript. (The nature of the subject matter is obviously relevant here as well.) But suppose it did contain a valid proof. Would I have been wrong not to take it more seriously? Should I have agreed to read it? Nope.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

In terms of any particular argument I don't see any agumentum ad hominem from you, George. Fact. But people going back and forth at each other on a personal level displace rational argument and we can call that ad hominem assaults as opposed to arguments as such. Not that Peter doesn't deserve it considering that any kind of death threat, even coated with humor, is the worst kind of ad hominem.

Let's put your misleading use of "ad hominem" aside and consider what's going on here.

Suppose you present reasonable arguments to a person over an extended period of time (as I did with Peter, especially on A2), and suppose he consistently ignores those arguments, while repeating his standard mantra over and over again, perhaps in slightly different words.

At some point you will stop wasting your time and decide that this person should not be treated with intellectual respect. And you might also decide, with good reason, that this person should be identified for what he truly is.

A is A. A thing is what it is. Peter Taylor is a fool.

It's that simple, and the fact that Peter can copy passages from Ayn Rand and parrot a few of her ideas doesn't change this fact. Nor would anything change if Peter suddenly converted to anarchism, except he would then be an anarchist fool instead of a minarchist fool.

I will admit that I exercised some polemical license when I suggested that Peter is psychotic. In truth, I don't know for certain if he is psychotic or not; and if we apply the principle of Occam's Razor, this theory is not necessary to explain why he writes such bilge. The fact that he is a fool is a sufficient explanation.

But there is another disturbing fact that imparts some credibility to the "psychotic" theory. Peter, by his own admission, has saved virtually everything I have posted on the Internet over the past decade -- thousands of posts -- and he frequently reposts things that I wrote years ago, some of which have no connection whatever to the topic under consideration.

I find this creepy, almost like I am being stalked in cyberspace. I mean, who does that sort of thing?

Ghs

[Peter]

Nothing of substance is happening, so I will give it a try. Instead of arguing, perhaps we can produce something.

My own thinking about The *Legitimate Sovereignty* of The United States of America, and the *Consent of the Governed.*

There are two legal principles that need to be examined in some depth. *Adverse Possession*, and *Eminent Domain* as they pertain to the *Consent of the Governed*.

*Adverse Possession*

In Anglo-American property law, holding of real property with the knowledge and against the will of one who has a superior ownership interest in it. Statutes of limitation in most U.S. states allow an adverse possessor to acquire legal title if the owner does not seek timely possession.

*Eminent Domain*

Government power to take private property for public use without the owner's consent. Constitutional provisions in most countries, including the U.S. (in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution), require the payment of just compensation to the owner. As a power peculiar to sovereign authority and coupled with a duty to pay compensation, the concept was developed by such 17th-century natural-law jurists as Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf. See also confiscation.

*Consent of the Governed*

"Consent of the governed" is a phrase synonymous with a political theory wherein a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that power is exercised. This theory of "consent" is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. A key question is whether the unanimous consent of the governed is required; if so, this would imply the right of secession for those who do not want to be governed by a particular collective.

Usually Adverse Possession means land is occupied by a “squatter” either with or without the consent of the true land owner. This can happen between law abiding property owners when the land has not been surveyed, and the parties agree upon a tree, a ditch, or some other landmark as the starting point from the road back in a straight line, is the property line.

In most states, after 20 years of no challenges by either property owner, the marker stands as the property line. If a true survey is done after twenty years, showing that the marker was not valid, then the property owner who was “shorted” of some land can take it to court but they will lose the case because of the principle of Adverse Possession.

Adverse Possession also pertains to the geographical region known as the United States. It has been 200 years since its establishment and no test case or Civil War has overturned the sovereignty of The United States of America. Therefore the lines stand as drawn. The principle of *Adverse Possession* works to ensure rights from land owner to landowner, generation to generation, even if one of the landowners is a *State*.

*Eminent Domain* or the power of the Government to take private, or unused property for public use without the owner's or occupiers consent, also pertains. Whatever the morality of taking lands from the Indians, or the original colonists with or without just compensation, it was accomplished over two centuries ago. The borders therefore stand as drawn.

The *Consent of the Governed* is thereby established by Common Law, legal precedence, and test cases lost by persons who wished to secede. The consent of the governed is therefore confirmed and no other affirmation is required. The Constitution of the United States of America is the law of the land, forever.

The Preamble could have contained a logical justification for the rights of people but instead, the status of the document was stated as axiomatic:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

End quote

AND so, The United States of America was established. All those who might have originally consented or declined to be part of The United States of America are deceased. After freedom from England was confirmed, individual citizens and legal scholars must start at the mid-point of a legitimate, working, *State*.

America exists, covering a certain geographical location. The right of consent to be governed is automatically given by anyone who continues to live here.

America may at some point, disband as did older Empires or more recently The Soviet Union. Occasionally, a new state may be created, with the consent of the governed, extending the geographical boundaries of America. A territory may decline the invitation, as has Puerto Rico.

An individual, within the geographical boundaries of The United States of America MAY NOT secede from The Union. While you live here, you give your consent to be governed and you will abide by the laws of the land. Forever.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

George wrote:

I find this creepy, almost like I am being stalked in cyberspace. I mean, who does that sort of thing?

end quote

You came to Objectivist Living a few days ago. You followed me. So who is stalking who? By your logic you are stalking and you are creepy, not me.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George and Peter,

What do you guys think about not posting to each other or about each other?

You piss each other off.

So this seems like a reasonable suggestion...

Michael

[George H. Smith]

George wrote:

I find this creepy, almost like I am being stalked in cyberspace. I mean, who does that sort of thing?

end quote

You came to Objectivist Living a few days ago. You followed me. So who is stalking who? By your logic you are stalking and you are creepy, not me.

Peter

I joined OL on Oct. 17, 2006. According to your profile, you joined over three years later, on Dec. 22, 2009.

Do you also suffer from delusions of grandeur?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George and Peter,

What do you guys think about not posting to each other or about each other?

You piss each other off.

So this seems like a reasonable suggestion...

Michael

I tried the non-response tactic for a while, but Peter kept saying he wanted me to respond to his posts. So I started to respond again, since I want nothing more than to make Peter happy. I admit that this didn't seem to work very well. I can't imagine why not. 8-)

If Peter refrains from posting additional nonsense about libertarian anarchism, then I will gladly refrain from further attempts to make him happy. And should Peter miraculously post a reasonable argument for anything, then any response from me will be written in a reasonable manner.

Ghs

[Peter]

George wrote:

I joined OL on Oct. 17, 2006. According to your profile, you joined over three years later, on Dec. 22, 2009.

Do you also suffer from delusions of grandeur?

Ghs

George wrote when he came here, on February 4, 2010:

I haven't visited this site in a long time. Where are the more interesting discussions taking place?

Ghs

So the question really isn’t if you ever once came here and left, it is when did you recently become a resident?

I joined Objectivist Living not seeking you, because you were not here.

However, chronologically and logically you COULD HAVE come to OL because I was already here. There is a better case for me to say you came here to cause me trouble, and to have me expelled, simply because you came after me, and you are causing me trouble and seem to be appealing to Michael Stuart Kelly to have me expelled. Are you threatening to leave if I am not expelled? You said to Michael, ‘This isn’t working out.” He said then ignore my letters and don’t address me (or words to that affect.) That you came to get even with me, may or may not be true, but you can in no way say I came to Objectivist Living seeking you out. Now, once again George, you are painting the kettle black. Do you have delusions of grandeur?

I will state unilaterally and you may second it or not:

I swear, by my life and by my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man; nor ask another man to live for mine, nor will I initiate force or threaten force (unless it is a clearly stated joking manner, as in I will hoist you upon your own petard,) and I will refrain from initiating the use of bullying language (to the extent of which I am capable.) This pertains to all of human kind, including George Hamilton Smith, but excludes enemies of the United States of American.

There George. There is no threat from me.

Now, I would really like to see a discussion of a revision to the Constitution that includes a scholar like yourself. I just created a defense of the concept of the *Consent of the Governed* from whole cloth, and since I am no scholar or lawyer, I knew I was risking scorn when I did it. But I did something. So far I think we could have put a discussion of revising the Constitution and improving Objectivist Political Theory into “Inky’s Room,” and gotten better results.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

What was the main intent of the Founding Father's when they wrote the Constitution? To protect individual rights. The fact that Judge Robert Bork, when nominated to the Supreme Court, did not understand this, set Rand off like a firecracker.

Peter:

I am going to attempt, a final time, to try to have a debate with you. Towards that end, I am going to address point by point this last post.

Cite a source that supports your assertion that:

"...the main intent of the Founding Father's when they wrote the Constitution." was "To protect individual rights."

Adam

trying to ascertain whether we are going to be playing in Fenway Park or Yankee Stadium since Baltimore has no "professional" baseball teams playing in the league anymore [yes a cruel sports dig].

Peter:

Does this mean that you will not answer this, or did I miss the answer?

Adam

I figured pussy might get your attention.

[George H. Smith]

*Eminent Domain* or the power of the Government to take private, or unused property for public use without the owner's or occupiers consent, also pertains. Whatever the morality of taking lands from the Indians, or the original colonists with or without just compensation, it was accomplished over two centuries ago. The borders therefore stand as drawn.

The *Consent of the Governed* is thereby established by Common Law, legal precedence, and test cases lost by persons who wished to secede. The consent of the governed is therefore confirmed and no other affirmation is required. The Constitution of the United States of America is the law of the land, forever.

Devastating the South and killing many thousands of Southerners during the Civil War was some test case. Some people might call that "military conquest," but what do they know?

Invoking the doctrine of eminent domain, which requires the initiation of force against innocent people, is a novel way to establish consent. Have you considered invoking the legal rationale for the enslavement of Africans? That might prove a nifty justification for consent as well.

The right of consent to be governed is automatically given by anyone who continues to live here.

Ah, yes -- the venerable "love it or leave it" doctrine. This is a wonderful thing, since it serves to legitimize virtually every government that has ever existed, no matter how tyrannical.

Btw, if you have any arguments to support your bald assertions, I would love to see them.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George wrote:

I joined OL on Oct. 17, 2006. According to your profile, you joined over three years later, on Dec. 22, 2009.

Do you also suffer from delusions of grandeur?

Ghs

George wrote when he came here, on February 4, 2010:

I haven't visited this site in a long time. Where are the more interesting discussions taking place?

Ghs

So the question really isn’t if you ever once came here and left, it is when did you recently become a resident?

Read the first page of this thread. I ventured back to OL shortly after I received a scam email from "Miss Joy." That email contained a link ostensibly to OL, and I was curious whether the link was authentic or whether it would take me to another site. I also wondered if Michael was aware of the scam, and I wanted to notify him if he wasn't.

The link took me here, after which I started the "What's Happening?" thread. I was curious about what was going on, especially since I wasn't very interested in the current topics on A2, and it was only after I scanned a few threads that I noticed your name. I had no idea that you were posting here, and I didn't exactly jump for joy when I found out.

Why on God's Green Earth would I follow you anywhere, Peter?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

No one should venture into the thicket of consent theory, especially as it pertains to the U.S. Constitution and government, without first coming to terms with Lysander Spooner's monograph No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (1870).

The complete text of this great classic can be found at:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2194&Itemid=27

Here is how Spooner begins:

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind any body but themselves. Let us see.

Ghs

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

“I am going to attempt, a final time, to try to have a debate with you. Towards that end, I am going to address point by point this last post . . . Cite a source that supports your assertion that:

"...the main intent of the Founding Father's when they wrote the Constitution." was "To protect individual rights.

End quote

Adam, I suggest you look at the Federalist Papers, AND read the constituion. Feel free to conjecture. I was looking at some of Ayn’s writings. She actually quotes the Preamble or the Constitution at tmes.

Of course Ayn Rand is not a force of nature or The Gospel, but I will take her word as the truth as she knew it, and the truth that she correctly identified.

From Capitalism the unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, page 330

“If men are to live together in a peaceful, productive, rational society and deal with one another to mutual benefit, they must accept the basic social principle without which no moral or civilized society is possible: the principle of individual rights.. . To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man’s nature for his proper survival.”

And on page 331 from the same Essay, The Nature of Government:

“If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules . . . This is the task of a government – of a proper government – its basic task, its only moral justification, and the reason why men do need a government.”

And on page 332:

“Since the protection of individual rights, is the only proper purpose of a government . . .”

When Ayn went ballistic over the nomination of Robert Bork, she wrote about it in the Objectivist and my old copies are in the attic. Jeez, Adam, it’s cold up there. Look it up yourself.

I am trying to line up Cindi Lauper to *channel* the Founding Fathers, and ask them their intentions, but she is preparing to take The Divine One, Bette Middler’s place in Vegas. Cindi will you stop that? Stop singing, Girls just want to have fu-un!”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

Now, I would really like to see a discussion of a revision to the Constitution that includes a scholar like yourself. I just created a defense of the concept of the *Consent of the Governed* from whole cloth, and since I am no scholar or lawyer, I knew I was risking scorn when I did it. But I did something.

Okay, Peter -- fair enough. I will hit the reset button and return to my quasi-academic manner of responding to your posts, so long as you steer clear of the stuff about my wishing to destroy America and the Constitution, etc., etc.

I had already posted a response to your "Consent of the Governed" piece before reading this post. It has a tone of sarcasm that I will omit from future replies, so long as our agreement holds.

Ghs

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

George and Peter, What do you guys think about not posting to each other or about each other? You piss each other off. So this seems like a reasonable suggestion...

Michael

I just saw your letter after I wrote some more replies to him. Sorry. You are being very reasonable.

Unseriously, I say, I’m old and feeble Michael. If I don’t use my walker, and I trip over the rug, hit my head on the computer and when I forget I said, “Very reaonable,” then I might write George directly. If I do forgive me.

Seriously. That is not a problem.

Unseriously, if he violates it, please put him in the ‘dog house” and force him to “flounce” for a biscuit.

OK, I will stop it.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

George wrote:

Okay, Peter -- fair enough. I will hit the reset button and return to my quasi-academic manner of responding to your posts, so long as you steer clear of the stuff about my wishing to destroy America and the Constitution, etc., etc.

I had already posted a response to your "Consent of the Governed" piece before reading this post. It has a tone of sarcasm that I will omit from future replies, so long as our agreement holds.

end quote

If Michael is copacetic with that so am I. Wow. ATCAG! you are my hero, George!

Peter

[Selene]

Adam wrote:

"I am going to attempt, a final time, to try to have a debate with you. Towards that end, I am going to address point by point this last post . . . Cite a source that supports your assertion that:

"...the main intent of the Founding Father's when they wrote the Constitution." was "To protect individual rights".

End quote

Adam, I suggest you look at the Federalist Papers, AND read the constituion. Feel free to conjecture. I was looking at some of Ayn's writings. She actually quotes the Preamble or the Constitution at tmes.

Of course Ayn Rand is not a force of nature or The Gospel, but I will take her word as the truth as she knew it, and the truth that she correctly identified.

From Capitalism the unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, page 330

"If men are to live together in a peaceful, productive, rational society and deal with one another to mutual benefit, they must accept the basic social principle without which no moral or civilized society is possible: the principle of individual rights.. . To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man's nature for his proper survival."

And on page 331 from the same Essay, The Nature of Government:

"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules . . . This is the task of a government – of a proper government – its basic task, its only moral justification, and the reason why men do need a government."

And on page 332:

"Since the protection of individual rights, is the only proper purpose of a government . . ."

When Ayn went ballistic over the nomination of Robert Bork, she wrote about it in the Objectivist and my old copies are in the attic. Jeez, Adam, it's cold up there. Look it up yourself.

I am trying to line up Cindi Lauper to *channel* the Founding Fathers, and ask them their intentions, but she is preparing to take The Divine One, Bette Middler's place in Vegas. Cindi will you stop that? Stop singing, Girls just want to have fu-un!"

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Peter:

I have read the daily diaries of the convention, as well as the Federalist Papers, Charles Beards - An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, Charles McIlwain's, Constitutionalism: Ancient and Modern, briefed and developed the arguments for two (2) Pro se litigants that went to the Supreme Court of the United States and all of Ayn's writings on government or politics.

Therefore, you are refusing to give a non-Randian source that states that:

"...the main intent of the Founding Father's when they wrote the Constitution." was "To protect individual rights".

I apologize for not making that specific. I know what Ayn wrote.

Why would you be unable to cite a non-Randian source for such an obvious assertion?

Why might that be?

Adam