Donovan A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OL12jUhxds The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 13 (The Evil of Self-Sacrifice)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPMzmlb4nFA The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 12 (Justice vs. Mercy)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5h2HSd_yTg The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 11 (Reason and Virtue)

The issue of property rights (like all forms of rights) does not come up other than in a social context. It's important to note that the root of property rights is production. Part of this discussion deals with calculating risks. I gave the example of flying airplanes over a city (especially after 9/11). One reaction after 9/11 was to ban nail clippers on board airplanes. After the shoe bomber incident, people were required to send their shoes through scanners, though it would have been more fun had they just banned shoes. After this recent off shore drilling incident, we see a moratorium on all gulf coast drilling even though these kinds of accidents are relatively rare (I think PB has drilled something like 5,000 times safely). One should also recognize that oil spills can be reasonably corrected. Certainly, some rational and objective laws can be established that do not require a total ban of off shore drilling. Certainly, banning nail clippers is not a rational reaction to 9/11. In conclusion, I think we should look to our basic principles. What rational principle can we use to determine social risks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQpD1yGXuCw The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 10 (The Objectivist Ethics)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md7yU8Z0I2Y The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 9 (The Psychology of Sex)

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=X5dUxzf7nRsThe Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 8 (The Psychology of Dependence)

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ZY1Pjk5FvDgThe Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 7 (Self-Esteem)

http://www.youtube.c...from=PL&index=5The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 6 (Efficient Thinking)

http://www.youtube.c...from=PL&index=4The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 5 (Free Will)

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=UWNYTIoaiikThe Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 4 (The Concept of God)

Culture of Reason Center Sale: act=viewProd&productId=183"] The Basic Principles of Objectivism Complete MP3 Series: $70.00 (50% off) Individual Lectures Now $3.50 each! - Sale ends on July 31, 2010.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ywG5Rc7n0WU The Basic Principles of Objectivism: Lecture 3 (Logic and Mysticism)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftYY4B3xu8

It's tough to know the relative risks of deep water vs. shallow water to local beaches. And when we discuss the habitat, the fishermen, and the relative preservation of the ecosystem, the issue becomes even more sticky. But as you point out, even 50 miles away damages coastline. Doesn't that suggest there is risk to the public beaches and therefore the issue should be decided by voters? It's not that private companies have a right to utilizing certain property; they don't. The liberty accorded to private companies is the right to purchase land that is available and to utilize land they own as they so choose. The issue of what land should be made privately available is an issue for the community, for the voters. Christopher, If land is unowned, who would I purchase it from? Why would I be purchasing unowned land from the government? Doesn't government derive its right to act from individual rights and not the inversion? I don't think beaches ought to be "public property" in the first place, but regardless, how far can the rights of beach owners logically extend? Should local beach voters have unlimited power over the entire ocean? Let's say drilling started off the cost of Cuba, but this made citizens in the U.S. uncomfortable, what then? If damage is done to a beach, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the oil company to clean it up to the best of its ability? Oil spill damages are rationally calculable, and the limits of culpability should not extend infinitely based on feelings or sentimental values. What this means is, if I were in a car accident and someone lost an arm or a leg, there is no technological way to regrow a person's arm or leg (setting things exactly as they were before the accident), but there is a preset dollar value I would legally be held accountable for. Now, even if we were living in the early 1800's and much of the west was unsettled, I could not claim 50 or 100 square miles for myself, simply because I want it, or other industries may pose a risk to me, or make me feel uncomfortable. Simply wanting does not constitute an actual right. Property rights have their basis in production and utilization, not desire or permission from the state. My suggestion is, read or review The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand (printed in Return of the Primitive - The Anti-Industrial Revolution)

In California, the disaster in Santa Barbara was 2 miles off the coast, so definitely two miles is too few. I agree that the federal government should not have the authority (although it seems they do) to determine whether offshore drilling can occur off states. The vote should go with those who assume the risk. Within the state, I think it's difficult to allow such powers to individual communities since the effects of community decisions extend to areas far larger than the community, whether it be oil in the sea, nuclear plants in the city, or pollution into the air. But at the same time, I can see how a state might actually abuse communities, so the solution isn't perfect either way. On what grounds could one push the oil drillers out farther than a mile or two away from shore? One must have some substantial claim to property in order to prevent others from drilling in open waters. If we are talking about risks, there is risk every time an airplane flies through the air. Certainly, a plane could crash by accident. What if people banned flying over cities or houses after 9/11? Just to put this into perspective, I did a quick online search for the economic costs of 9/11: $639.3 billion, about 91 times the cost of The Exxon Valdez oil spill which roughly exceeded $7 billion. I could not find any quick facts on the Santa Barbara spill, but I did find this link interesting: http://www.rense.com/general90/barb.htm At most, I can understand requiring a company to have insurance if they are going to drill off shore. If someone owns a resort or a home or business near an oil rig, perhaps it would be wise for them to also purchase insurance (though not obligatory), in case the oil company and their insurance fails to clean up everything. I think it is much safer to allow drilling in more shallow waters near the shore, than 50 miles off the cost in mile deep waters. As you can see in this PB disaster, the oil still reaches home. Not to mention how the scope, magnitude, environmental and economic impact of the spill is far worse, and harder to plug.

Brant, Do you mean that an inanimate object like a road goes out and kills people if it is a public road, but it will not go about slaughtering folks if it is a private road? Sounds really weird to me. I thought people killed people, not roads... Michael Michael, It seems what Brant was trying to say is that public roads are not as safe as they could and would be if privatized. Like anything else, I think the key issue concerning roads is that they must be created, built and maintained by voluntary means as opposed to taxes. In a truly capitalistic society, I imagine there would be all kinds of self-interested motivators that would aid in the production and maintenance of roads. Automobile manufacturers and local dealerships would have a stake in road construction because people would want roads to drive their cars on. Road builders would want car sales because without cars, road construction would take a very different form. Business owners would want roads and parking, so that customers can easily frequent their stores. Home and car owners would probably like to be able to get their cars to their homes. It is hard to say or project exactly how privatization would look in practice, because there are in fact so many voluntary contractual options, all motivated by profit. Some very basic utility companies might even pool together such as electric, water and roads. If you buy electricity or want water in your home or business, then a percentage or fee might go toward road construction and maintenance to your home or business. I don't know anyone who does not want or have water and or electricity in their home or business today. Just some thoughts, Randall

Unfortunately this reductionism happens quite frequently in Objectivism from what I've observed. Private property and production become the ends rather than the means to some greater end. In following the reduction, people begin to support behaviors and systems that undermine human life and liberty on a more universal scale. These Objectivists do so simply to allow producers to produce more efficiently (as an end rather than a means), private property owners to act without restriction (as an end rather than a means), or the development of oil rigs of the coast of California (just had to add that last one) If we accept the idea that the government can claim territorial rights off the shore, and I do, then do the grounds for restrictions stem simply from majority vote? How much ocean territory (how far out from shore) can the government claim ownership? What principle applies here? So the question fundamentally is: by what moral/practical right can someone or some group prevent another person or company from drilling for oil off shore? I don't think the risks in the case of off shore drilling are significant enough to constitute a total (federal) ban off U.S. costs. If some particular shores are very attractive and highly occupied by residences and businesses (which were there first), I can understand oil companies needing local government permission, i.e., permission only from the local majority or perhaps a unanimous local vote one way or the other. I do not see how the federal government should have any say in such policies. I'd argue that the federal government can extend its territorial ownership out farther than local individual/state governments could have jurisdiction, based on national costal defense requirements. Local state community governments should probably have the right to prevent oil companies from drilling at least a mile or two away from shore as to prevent oil rigs from interfering with the established business/residential environments. However, once an oil rig is almost or completely out of visible range, I can't see how local communities can claim any property rights or say. One should not forget that there might be some local communities that would not restrict off shore drilling within even those one or two mile parameters. It's also possible that some oil rigs might be built before any costal/shore communities develop. In that case, I'd say the oil companies would have priority based on a first come, first serve policy. If someone builds their home near a visible off shore oil rig, then they should have no right to push the oil drillers away. That's the best I can do at 4:30 in the morning. Please bear with me, because I'm simply trying to think this through. I do think the broad principles should be defined first.

My suggestion is, listen to the samples. There are 20 lectures and I've created a sample for each lecture. Compared to the cost of this material a year ago, $7.50 is not a lot of money to download a single lecture (an option which was not available at all in the recent past). If you don't like the first lecture that much, then don't purchase the rest of the series. If you prefer reading, I also sell The Vision of Ayn Rand, the transcribed version of the Branden lectures for $24.02.

My thinking is, one needs to work out a rational understanding of property rights on land before moving to more complex issues like water and air ownership. Clearly some people are against all laws, but at the same time argue for the recognition of property rights which I think is a contradiction. This post on wiki seems to offer some interesting background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._territorial_waters The idea of government/public roads seems somewhat odd. Based on the Objectivist theory of government, there should not be any taxation. If as a community, people wish to organize and cooperatively produce local roads through developments, homeowner associations etc, I don't have a problem with that. Most likely even in an Objectivist society there would be some form of easement laws, which would allow a person to simply walk to wherever, but not necessarily drive. City to city highways clearly could be privatized. I saw some arguments in this thread about objective safety, which seem like arguments for zoning to an extent. In a free society, would a private company not be free to produce nuclear power plants? I find these kinds of issues are very hard to deal with because one has to keep degree and measurement in mind and everyone has different comfort levels. I have seen some very rationalistic positions over the years which would allow for islamic fundamentalists (who have not done anything bad yet), to build and own nukes in their garages. I tend to view that mindset as intrinsicism. From my observation, these kinds of thinkers end up divorcing morality from practicality, rationalistically applying morality in cases for which no moral position could logically be defensible. In the case of this recent oil spill, it sounds like there was a lot of government oversight and regulation in place already (something the government doesn't seem to want people to talk about). However, I must admit that I don't know much about the actual laws and regulations, nor how they are enforced and implemented. My last thought is, if zoning is not appropriate on land, why would it be appropriate in the ocean?

I think a better comparable is Peikoff’s OPAR as sold on audible.com 19 hours, $31 for non-members, $22 for members, or 1 credit, with is $15 to get 1 credit a month, or $23 to get 2 a month. The 1976 course isn’t available in print, and is superceded by OPAR, so the market for that course is…completist freaks? I heard it many years ago and there’s no way I’d pay $240 for it. The two materials in question somewhat contradict each other in regard to their alleged value. OPAR was not endorsed by Ayn Rand, therefore it's not official Objectivism. The 1976 course states that OPAR supersedes the 76 course and that OPAR is the definitive statement of Objectivism. Bottom line, both the Basic Principles of Objectivism and the 76 Peikoff course were endorsed by Ayn Rand for those that are interested in her stamp of approval. There are some differences between OPAR and the 76 course, for one the reorganization of OPAR is a significant improvement. In my opinion, Branden's lectures are a better introduction specifically because they are more engaging, i.e., they provide a good balance of abstractions and concretes (many examples). Branden's emphasis on psychology is very helpful for someone who wants to live the philosophy in action. Peikoff's emphasis is very much from the perspective of a philosopher. As for the pricing of the Basic Principles, it has improved since I have started selling the materials almost a year ago. I've taken what you have said seriously, and I'll consider negotiating an even more competitive price for these lectures in the near future. Best, Randall

In terms of the market, I think it's interesting to look at the pricing of these two items: The Philosophy of Objectivism (CD) Unit Price: $240.00!! (Audio CD; 33-CD set; 32 hrs., 30 min., with Q& A) http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LP24M Granted, Ayn Rand participates in the Q&A. But certainly, there are other Lectures by Peikoff that do not include such a bonus and yet they are still very expensive. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Softcover) $13.95 http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/products.asp?dept=20 One would think that since the softcover price of OPAR is only $13.95, the price of the lectures would be much less. I guess since the book came out they do not charge $455.00 anymore.

Thank you so much for the feedback. The current sales price for these lectures was negotiated almost a year ago. At that time, this lecture series was only offered for sale on CD. I was the first (as far as I know) to offer this product in a downloadable format. Now that the transcription has been published, it might make sense to revisit the pricing. Best, Randall

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySub8vJfNs8 Download the complete Interview from our website: $7.95

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkDaysCQBvY