Why do you think you are contradicting anything I’ve said or are disagreeing with me? I am well aware of what Ayn Rand had to say about a government’s use of force with respect to a society. As I said above, this has nothing to do with one society’s use of force against another society. They are completely different subjects.
So you think it is perfectly OK for Bin Laden and other terrorists to use force against Americans as he sees fit. I see.
I seriously don’t believe you have actually read anything that Ayn Rand wrote past someone’s third hand account of what she wrote. It’s as if someone with a user name designed to point to their Christianity were to argue not only that Christ isn’t the son of God, but that the New Testament makes no mention of Jesus. You simply could not have missed the illegitimacy of the use force to take things, or the implied threat of force if you say were to say not pay taxes being the cornerstone of Ayn’s philosophy if you had actually read Atlas Shrugged or any of her other books. In none of what she ever wrote did she say she only meant Objectivism to only be applied internally. Indeed, the use of force by individuals or governments to seize goods from another country would be completely contrary to Objectivism and anti-capitalist.
I don’t get how you can think you haven’t been contradicted. You insisted that
which is of course, entirely untrue. Do try to pay attention.
Note it says the banishment of force from human relations, not internally to just your country.
Note that it says against others, not others except those outside your country.
Note that it says the government can only use force in self defense and only against those who initiate its use, not that she wants the entirety of her philosophy to be thrown in the toilet the second you talk about other countries. How would the government go about paying for the waging wars of aggression by the way? Oh yeah, by taxing its citizens. Need I explain to you how this causes a contradiction to Objectivism? As well, try reading the speech of John Galt and marking down every time she invokes ethics and morality as being the basis of her philosophy. Considering the volume of her works, don’t you think she would have mentioned somewhere at sometime that she was just kidding and everything she wrote should be pissed on and thrown out the window and we should take by force from others?
Honestly, pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and read it. Based on what you have posted you have very little understanding of Ayn’s philosophy and make it obvious that you have never actually read any of her works. The sad thing is I’m not even an Objectivist and I know more about what you claim to believe in than you do.
Those of you investing energy in opposing Rand Rover are missing his point, (which he has repeated, while carefully avoiding pointing out his distinction).
He does not claim that ethics cannot exist; he simply distinguishes between the actions undertaken by or directed toward individuals and actions undertaken between societies. Based on the fact that societies or nations have often violated their own ethics in order to impose their wills on other societies or nations, he is simply making the claim that ethics has no bearing on the actions of large groups because they will ignore them at their pleasure.
He has simply chosen to leap from the premise that countries do not follow ethical standards to the assertion that they will not follow ethical standards, then to the further implication that no one should ever attempt to hold them to ethical standards.
All the dancing around what Rand did or did not hold to be true is irrelevant to his point. Now, I don’t care whether you all continue this hijack or not, but at least be aware of the ways in which he is jerking you around.
In short, yes.
In slightly longer, there’s nothing “unethical” about bin Laden using force against America because ethics just don’t apply in this arena. As an American, I think bin Laden is in the wrong and should be stopped.
I think you are basically right in the first part of this post. The last part, as you should well know, belongs in another forum. I am stating my opinions plainly and responding to other posters honestly–I am in no way “jerking people around.” You owe me an apology.
Anti-capitalist?! Tell that to all the countries in Central America and the Caribbean who had to endure governments of the people, by the military with U.S. Marine support, for United Fruit!
How can ethics apply within societies but not between societies?
Well, I don’t really think that ethics should even apply within society. I don’t really know what people mean when they use language about ethics and morality–I think people mean different things in different contexts without realizing the differences, and I’m just frustrated with the whole thing really.
That being said, let’s posit the existence of a set of rules or guidelines for behavior that almost everybody believes that almost everybody else should follow. I think that those rules make sense only if they arise from contract–i.e., from the notion that we have all chosen to live in a society and obeying these rules and guidelines makes for a better society.
Therefore, two societies relating to each other are in a void as far as ethics is concerned. They have made no contract. They owe no duty to each other.
I’m not missing his point at all. I had simply mentioned upthread that I found it odd that someone claiming to be espousing Rand would hold the view that he does since it’s contrary to Rand’s entire philosophy. I apologize for the hijack, I’ve never interacted with Mr. Rover before and was frankly stunned by the ignorance of Ayn Rand displayed in the replies. Fighting ignorance and all that.
The last part, an accurate assessment both of your performance in this thread as well as your general behavior on the board, was simply an effort to alert other posters who may not be familiar with your style. While I do not think that you are misbehaving, (as in breaking the rules), I think that the phrase “jerking around” describes your posting style quite well. If you dislike that characterization, find a way to post that does not fit the description.
Anti-capitalist as Ayn Rand would define it - and well not exactly capitalist in general, more neocolonialism.
I think that the phrase “couldn’t reason his way out of a wet paper sack” describes your posting style.
If you wish to simply post insults, take it to the BBQ Pit.
Drop this hijack.
[ /Modding ]
But, there is international law, which is more truly contractual than the law within any society, as it is mostly based on treaties between sovereign states with the freedom not to enter into them.
Same to you bub.
But there can be a remedy for breaking a contract only if all parties to the contract are members of a society. International law therefore isn’t “the law” with respect to two countries in the same way that a state’s law is the law with respect to two residents.
This is an official Warning to you to quit cluttering up this thread with your bickering.
[ /Moderating ]
That’s as much as to say that law is meaningless without an all-powerful state’s force to back it up. It isn’t. It isn’t quite all it should be, but it is not meaningless.
I don’t see how that’s the case. I just said that a contract is meaningless without a state to govern both parties; that doesn’t mean that a contract between two members of a society is meaningless unless the society’s government is all-powerful.