James Randi and Objectivism

[Foster Zygote]

Now back to the "Injuns".

Both the Europeans and the earlier tribes had irrational conceptions of who deserved to live or be here or there. Those are issues that raise different concerns, and whether you can grasp it or not yet, on which I think most of your positions and Objectivist positions will agree. Rand was no racist, and neither am I.

The issue that is more complex and pertinent in the current context is the one of property rights that are a corollary to the right to life from which they derive their validity. Property rights recognize the fact that human beings are not genetically equipped like other living entities to automatically act for the sustenance and flourishing of their lives. They have to apply the product of their reason to their physical actions to produce that sustenance.

The mere fact that men can greatly increase their productivity by voluntary cooperation does not constitute any claim by any other person or persons to a right to compel such cooperation. There does not exist any grounds that would support any one man's claim to the product of another's reason and effort. It is a primary moral principle, therefore, that each man owns and has the sole right to use and/or dispose of the product of his own reason applied to his own physical actions. That product is his property.

Conversely, no man may claim to own something that is not produced by or acquired in a voluntary exchange of a product of his own reason/effort. That is why a thief or an accomplice does not have a right to booty.

It is also why matter cannot be owned, because it is not the product of anyone's reason/effort. Grasping this, one must then distinguish between possession and ownership. The thief possesses your watch, but does not own it.

You can claim you own the land by just consuming the plants and animals on it or sleeping and eating there, but unless you incorporate into the land the product of your reason/effort, there is nothing you can own. The ownership of land actually means that you own the reason/effort that is embodied into the matter you possess and gives it a value greater than it had in its natural state. Because no one else can claim to own that matter, your moral claim to the value of the embodied reason/effort also sanctions a right to its possession.

Even if they could not explain these facts when they came here, most of the Europeans did grasp the notion of establishing ownership by the principle of homesteading. The tribes that preceded them neither understood that nor tolerated it.

To the extent the Europeans acknowledged the property of those who settled on and planted the lands and only killed those who killed the arriving settlers that homesteaded other lands and did not support herding them into reservations, they were innocent. To the extent they did not, they were not.

You might want to rely on some scholarship other than Rand's infantile, early twentieth century grade-school level concept of "savages" and "cavemen". Native American cultures were complex politically and socially. They used and managed the resources of their lands. They managed the land itself, regularly engaging in a practice of controlled burning to keep the land open and better suited to their use. Where practical they engaged in agriculture. They made tools, fashioned clothing, built homes and community structures. They maintained borders, fought wars and made alliances. They established trade between communities and nations.

 

[marplots]

No human being can treat another human being as property without granting that they too may be treated as property, since all human beings have the same fundamental nature. No human being can violate the right of another human being to his life without implicitly forfeiting his own right to life.

That is the moral justification for self defense and incarceration of those who violate the rights of others.

I like this until I think about it. Without some overriding authority (could be government, could be God, could be societal mores) the guy who has a vested interest in taking away my right to life is already dead. It behooves no one else to prosecute the case, there is no profit in it for them, no moral impetus if they simply didn't care for that guy I shot either. (He was an Indian anyhow.) As a murderer, I have given up my right to life, but there is no one who cares a whit about taking it from me.

How does the Rational Man act when acting moral is against his perceived self interest and not acting moral costs him nothing at all? In what dim corner of rational does caring reside?

This was my counter claim earlier. Not only that we are not rational, but that things work out better because of it. Unreasonable is critical. Instinct, impulse and so on are a useful, nay, essential, part of the package.

 

[joesixpack]

This is a gross underestimation of the capacity of men to survive alone and just as grossly irrelevant. Men are not tribal animals. We do not have to act together. We choose to act together to benefit from the efficiencies inherent in the division of labor. A group of human beings who choose to interact socio-economically is not a tribe.

This is the wrongest wrongness in the history of wrong. There are few (almost none, really) examples in recorded history of people surviving independently. of the examples we do have, none lasted more than a couple of years.

A person, which is to say homo sapien sapien, is a totally social animal. A pack animal, a cooperative animal, an animal who depends upon group unity and language. There is no dispute about this among anthropologists, historians, sociologists, or psychologists. The only people who think otherwise are objectivists and Rush Limbaugh.

How on earth do you think language developed? How could it develop beyond the simplest grunts of warning without social cohesion? It was the natural outcome of an innate human social instinct.

We are genetically equipped with the tools necessary to act for our sustenance (reason and physical capacities) but unlike other animals, we are not genetically programmed to make the choices of how to use our tools.

You seem to be ignoring one important piece of genetic "equipment" that humans have, to wit, a social instinct.

For the record, there is nothing in Objectivism that advocates living alone. On the contrary, with a few exceptions, it would be an irrational choice to forsake the enormous value of living in a society of (rational) men.

And here's the trouble, the assumption that men will suddenly become "rational" in an objectivist society, AND that they are not rational when not in such a society. Objectivists like to measure "Rationalism" by the degree to which one agrees with the tenets of objectivism. The only "rationalism" I see among objectivists is the "rationalization" that objectivists must do to reconcile their plainly idealist philosophy with materialism.

 

[joesixpack]

Inherited wealth is earned by being the kind of person that another person values so much that he wants you and not someone else to have his wealth. There may not be inheritance taxes in an Objectivist society because theft is an act of taking values owned by others by force.

Let me fix that for you; "Inherited wealth is earned by being the kind of person that a billionaire values"

Is my parent's love for me is somehow worth less than a billionaire's love for his children? Why yes, monetarily speaking, it must be. I'm still the sort of person who my parents value, and they may very well value me more than the billionaire values his spoiled sociopathic son, but our compensation packages are going to be far different after the funerals. Seems that if I had been smart enough to be born into a wealthy family I would have done better, eh?

Neither you nor any other person can substantiate a claim on the wealth of others or what they do with it. You condemn a mugger for stealing a wealthy persons wallet, then authorize the government to do it. Unadulterated hypocrisy.

Actually, our democratic free society has been doing just that for about 200 years. And will continue to do so. I don't see that the government will be able to accomplish even the small role you imagine it would fulfill in the objectivist world without taxes. You had suggested in another post that corporations would "sponsor" government? Did I read that right? 'Cause if that's what you think, then you're not only totally ignorant of history, you're ignorant of current events.

 

[joesixpack]

...You condemn a mugger for stealing a wealthy persons wallet, then authorize the government to do it. Unadulterated hypocrisy.

I have to treat this part separately because it shows the fundamental self deception of objectivists. The complete denial of the value provided in exchange for taxes collected.

You seem to forget that you drive on public roads, you most likely attended public schools, you eat groceries that are delivered to you over public infrastructure, you use services provided by the government who collected that money in taxes. There is not one single thing you do in your daily life that is not facilitated by infrastructure provided through tax revenue. And those taxes were paid by the wealthiest sector of society. What you pay in taxes wouldn't even cover a tenth of the value you receive in return. Why do we collect taxes at a higher rate from the wealthy? Because they derive the greatest benefit from the society in which they live and make money. Because they profit the most by this society.

 

[MichaelM]

I like this until I think about it. Without some overriding authority (could be government, could be God, could be societal mores) the guy who has a vested interest in taking away my right to life is already dead. It behooves no one else to prosecute the case, there is no profit in it for them, no moral impetus if they simply didn't care for that guy I shot either. (He was an Indian anyhow.) As a murderer, I have given up my right to life, but there is no one who cares a whit about taking it from me.

Thanks for posing an intelligent question.

Every human being needs the right to his autonomy. Therefore, the proper condition in which to pursue his life is one in which he has the right to have his own choices in life be free from coercion by others.

That is the motivation and justification for defining a political system in a society of men to guarantee that condition. It is the motivation and justification for designing a system that will remove the use of force from human value exchanges, to place it in the hands of a neutral third party institution and to restrict that institution's ability to use that force for anything but defense of that right.

The need of that right for every man never ceases. Their right to prevent, stop, and punish the use of force never ceases to be necessary, regardless of how many perpetrators die or get away with their crime or continue to commit crimes. The task of the government is always to do its best to eliminate force for the benefit of all men.

When men cease to care about removing force in principle and in perpetuity, they will cease to have a just and moral government. They will first get the Bushes and Obamas, then Pinochet and Chavez, followed by Stalin and Hitler, culminating in Pol Pot.

How does the Rational Man act when acting moral is against his perceived self interest and not acting moral costs him nothing at all?

Morality is that set of principles one must define to serve as standards for the infinite choices of action that constitute one's life. By definition, the moral is the good—that which contributes to a life of a human being consistent with his nature. The immoral is inherently the bad that detracts from that life.

The notion of a moral act contrary to one's self interest is a self contradiction.

The notion of a moral act contrary to one's perceived self interest indicates an erroneous perception of one's self interest.

This was my counter claim earlier. Not only that we are not rational, but that things work out better because of it.

Beware of switching your contexts. Rational has two meanings in this discussion.

1) "Man is a rational animal" means that his specific and unique means of survival is a rational faculty—a capacity that enables him to organize an infinite number of sensory perceptions into broad concepts and concepts of concepts and so on to amass the necessary knowledge to survive and flourish.

2) "That man is rational" means that he is using the faculty in 1) correctly.

All men are always and ever rational animals, but only sometimes rational.

Unreasonable is critical. Instinct, impulse and so on are a useful, nay, essential, part of the package.

Human beings do have automatic functional, physical actions over which they have little or no control. Human beings have automatic psychological actions that appear to be instincts, but are actually responses to prior evaluations of oneself and the rest of the universe in relation to oneself. Those can be altered and controlled.

Human beings do not have instincts like the other animals that genetically predetermine their responses to their perceptions or other stimuli. As I have previously explained, to advocate such is self refuting, because to be useful, it has to be advocated as being true. But you cannot have both truth and instincts, because there would be no way to distinguish those assessments of your thoughts and actions from each other.

 

[Dinwar]

I have to treat this part separately because it shows the fundamental self deception of objectivists. The complete denial of the value provided in exchange for taxes collected.

No. Look into the Objectivist theory of government sometime. The idea isn't that the government provides no benefits--it's that the government, as it has a monopoly on the use of force in a society, must properly be kept to a certain, clearly delineated role: that of protecting rights. The other benefits of government programs--the swimming pools, the roads, the cars (remember, the US government now owns a portion of at least one car manufacturer), all of that--is outside the government's role and therefore is imporper for governments to engage in. Again, the reason for this strict limitation on government power isn't because it can't provide any other benefit, it's because the government is simply too dangerous to be allowed to exist without such controls.

You seem to forget that you drive on public roads, you most likely attended public schools, you eat groceries that are delivered to you over public infrastructure, you use services provided by the government who collected that money in taxes. There is not one single thing you do in your daily life that is not facilitated by infrastructure provided through tax revenue.

This is nothing but the Is/Ought fallacy: "Things are the way they are, therefore this is the way they ought to be!" I get that right now it's impossible to live without the government interfearing in some way. What YOU refuse to acknowledge is 1) these issues have been addressed by Objectivists, and 2) Objectivists say to get rid of them all. Make the roads private. Make the schools private. Stop subsidizing farms (just for laughs, check out how much we're paying tobacco farmers to grow their crops--it illustrates the insanity of government intervention in farming). What O'ists want is a society where these things ARE NOT provided by the government, where they're provided by individuals. And saying "But that doesn't exist!" is hardly a counter-argument.

Morality is that set of principles one must define to serve as standards for the infinite choices of action that constitute one's life. By definition, the moral is the good—that which contributes to a life of a human being consistent with his nature.

It should be pointed out that O'ism is an individualistic philosophy--the standard of morality is what's good for one's own life. And before anyone says "Well, it'd be good to rob my neighbor! That'll give me more money!", I should also point out that determining what's good for one's life requires a long-term perspective. Sure, robbing your neighbor may help right now. However, it may get you killed, eventually you won't have a neighbor to rob, and if we attempted to apply this universally society itself would shut down.

 

[joesixpack]

No. Look into the Objectivist theory of government sometime. The idea isn't that the government provides no benefits--it's that the government, as it has a monopoly on the use of force in a society, must properly be kept to a certain, clearly delineated role: that of protecting rights. The other benefits of government programs--the swimming pools, the roads, the cars (remember, the US government now owns a portion of at least one car manufacturer), all of that--is outside the government's role and therefore is imporper for governments to engage in. Again, the reason for this strict limitation on government power isn't because it can't provide any other benefit, it's because the government is simply too dangerous to be allowed to exist without such controls.

The role of government in the lives of individuals must be balanced with the needs of society. The relationship between these two considerations is developed dialectically over the course of history (and will continue to be). Objectivests would have us believe that there is an objective moral absolute as to where that line should be drawn. I find it telling that this line is drawn at paying taxes.

This is nothing but the Is/Ought fallacy: "Things are the way they are, therefore this is the way they ought to be!" I get that right now it's impossible to live without the government interfearing in some way. What YOU refuse to acknowledge is 1) these issues have been addressed by Objectivists, and 2) Objectivists say to get rid of them all. Make the roads private. Make the schools private. Stop subsidizing farms (just for laughs, check out how much we're paying tobacco farmers to grow their crops--it illustrates the insanity of government intervention in farming). What O'ists want is a society where these things ARE NOT provided by the government, where they're provided by individuals. And saying "But that doesn't exist!" is hardly a counter-argument.

No, this is the "Is/no one's come up with a better system yet" non-fallacy. The fact that you can find preposterous government subsidies is proof of nothing more than that government sometimes makes mistakes in how public money is spent. You may be able to afford roads and schools from the private sector (though I doubt it), but most of society can't. If you think the half assed government we have now is costly, wait 'til you see what no government costs.

When I was a wage earner my income was in the top quintile of taxpayers in the US. At least 80% of taxpayers made less than I. My taxes at the end of the year were STILL lower than what my brother pays to send his three daughters to private school (Now that I'm a "wealthy" business owner I earn considerably less and I cry all the way to the bank).

This rush to defend the earnings of the hard-working rich is worse than foolish. The rich are supported by the labor of workers. They are able to make profit by the surplus value of labor. They are able to accumulate wealth at a much faster rate and with a much lower output than the poor or the middle class. They profit the most from society, so I don't see how it's immoral for them to bear the bulk of the fiscal burden. They need to "give unto Caesar" and stop whining.

The more I read of the "philosophy" of objectivism, the more it seems like a shaggy dog story with "so therefore, I shouldn't pay taxes" as the punchline.

It should be pointed out that O'ism is an individualistic philosophy--the standard of morality is what's good for one's own life. And before anyone says "Well, it'd be good to rob my neighbor! That'll give me more money!", I should also point out that determining what's good for one's life requires a long-term perspective. Sure, robbing your neighbor may help right now. However, it may get you killed, eventually you won't have a neighbor to rob, and if we attempted to apply this universally society itself would shut down.

The trouble with Objectivism is that it is only an individualistic philosophy. Humans aren't capable of surviving as individuals.

Objectivism is simply a reaction to the false dichotomy between total subservience to collectivized society and the individual as "Heroic being" (Rand's words). Don't you think that there are other options?

 

[Dinwar]

The role of government in the lives of individuals must be balanced with the needs of society.

I thnk it should be obvious, but I guess it needs saying: I disagree with you on this.

Objectivests would have us believe that there is an objective moral absolute as to where that line should be drawn. I find it telling that this line is drawn at paying taxes.

You really know nothing about the current state of the philosophy, do you? Dr. Hsieh is against taxation entirely. Leonard Piekoff, as I recall, advocates a limited taxation. Personally, I think any contract should include a tax, to pay for the enforcement of that contract.

But again, you're committing the Is/Ought Fallacy. If you limit the government to its proper role--protecting citizens from force and fraud--you don't NEED a huge tax base.

No, this is the "Is/no one's come up with a better system yet" non-fallacy.

Nothing you've said thus far, including the pointless commentary on my income, is anything but "This is the way things are now". I mean, look at this line:

You may be able to afford roads and schools from the private sector (though I doubt it), but most of society can't.

The translation of this is: It won't work today, under the current system, therefore it's impossible.

Until you're willing to accept that I'm talking about a different system, any further discussion on this point is wasted.

The trouble with Objectivism is that it is only an individualistic philosophy. Humans aren't capable of surviving as individuals.

Again, you really are ignorant of the philosophy. Rand herself discussed this point: having other people around is a value, but it is not the PARAMOUNT value. Most Objectivists I know are quite gregarious, in fact. They understand the value of having other people around, and understand the value of other people in an economy particularly well. Nothing in Objectivism says that we must survive on our own without any interactions with others. In fact, a great deal of the work in this philosophy amounts to answering the question of how to interact with others.

Objectivism is simply a reaction to the false dichotomy between total subservience to collectivized society and the individual as "Heroic being" (Rand's words). Don't you think that there are other options?

No, not really. Not in the long run. In the long run, the "other options" are merely increased subsurviance to collectivized society. And you really should learn what Rand meant when she said that phrase. Humans are rational beings--and sometimes that means interacting with others on a rational basis. You seem to be laboring under the impression that O'ists beleive that hermits are the ideal--alone, cut off from society, without interaction with anyone. They're not. The ideal in O'ism is the businessman: a trader who gets value for value, and who interacts with people constantly. Her heros were scientists, industrialists, teachers, etc.--hardly a philosophy that advocates hermits.

In fact, historically it's Christianity, which is a collectivistic religion at heart, that lead to the rise of hermits. Something to think about: an individualistic philosophy that advocates dealing with people on a rational basis leads to peolpe gathering together, while a collectivistic religion that stresses asceticism leads to hermits alone in the desert.

 

[tsig]

I thnk it should be obvious, but I guess it needs saying: I disagree with you on this.

You really know nothing about the current state of the philosophy, do you? Dr. Hsieh is against taxation entirely. Leonard Piekoff, as I recall, advocates a limited taxation. Personally, I think any contract should include a tax, to pay for the enforcement of that contract.

But again, you're committing the Is/Ought Fallacy. If you limit the government to its proper role--protecting citizens from force and fraud--you don't NEED a huge tax base.

Nothing you've said thus far, including the pointless commentary on my income, is anything but "This is the way things are now". I mean, look at this line:

The translation of this is: It won't work today, under the current system, therefore it's impossible.

Until you're willing to accept that I'm talking about a different system, any further discussion on this point is wasted.

Again, you really are ignorant of the philosophy. Rand herself discussed this point: having other people around is a value, but it is not the PARAMOUNT value. Most Objectivists I know are quite gregarious, in fact. They understand the value of having other people around, and understand the value of other people in an economy particularly well. Nothing in Objectivism says that we must survive on our own without any interactions with others. In fact, a great deal of the work in this philosophy amounts to answering the question of how to interact with others.

No, not really. Not in the long run. In the long run, the "other options" are merely increased subsurviance to collectivized society. And you really should learn what Rand meant when she said that phrase. Humans are rational beings--and sometimes that means interacting with others on a rational basis. You seem to be laboring under the impression that O'ists beleive that hermits are the ideal--alone, cut off from society, without interaction with anyone. They're not. The ideal in O'ism is the businessman: a trader who gets value for value, and who interacts with people constantly. Her heros were scientists, industrialists, teachers, etc.--hardly a philosophy that advocates hermits.

In fact, historically it's Christianity, which is a collectivistic religion at heart, that lead to the rise of hermits. Something to think about: an individualistic philosophy that advocates dealing with people on a rational basis leads to peolpe gathering together, while a collectivistic religion that stresses asceticism leads to hermits alone in the desert.

What if the country next door decides that you aren't using the land in your country properly so they invade to take it?

It seems that the same principles you used to justify the dispossession of the Indians would apply here.

 

[Foster Zygote]

What if the country next door decides that you aren't using the land in your country properly so they invade to take it?

It seems that the same principles you used to justify the dispossession of the Indians would apply here.

Or let's say that I owned and lived on a thousand acres of forested land that I choose to preserve in a near pristine state. What's to stop some objectivist lumber company executive from deciding that I am acting "in a sub-human manner", and that "it is no longer proper for

to survive nor to be happy"?

 

[stilicho]

....

This is nothing but the Is/Ought fallacy: "Things are the way they are, therefore this is the way they ought to be!" I get that right now it's impossible to live without the government interfearing in some way. What YOU refuse to acknowledge is 1) these issues have been addressed by Objectivists, and 2) Objectivists say to get rid of them all. Make the roads private. Make the schools private. Stop subsidizing farms (just for laughs, check out how much we're paying tobacco farmers to grow their crops--it illustrates the insanity of government intervention in farming). What O'ists want is a society where these things ARE NOT provided by the government, where they're provided by individuals. And saying "But that doesn't exist!" is hardly a counter-argument.

....

Do you have to be an Objectivist to object to federal subsidies of the agricultural sector? The education "system" is badly in need of repairs and privatisation is certainly one option that has to be weighed. Private roads? Nonsense. I've heard a lot of proposals on how this would work and none of them are feasible.

This is one of the issues I have with a dogma such as Objectivism. It places the adherent into indefensible positions and fools him into thinking that others who agree with him on some point (even for the "right" reasons) means that this dogma may be applied with equal ease to all others.

Does this help a bit? I like the way that you sometimes supply concrete Objectivist positions on matters of public policy because that's how this kind of political philosophy can be hammered out and debated properly.

....

It should be pointed out that O'ism is an individualistic philosophy--the standard of morality is what's good for one's own life. And before anyone says "Well, it'd be good to rob my neighbor! That'll give me more money!", I should also point out that determining what's good for one's life requires a long-term perspective

....

No. What's good for one's life ought to require a long-term perspective. Of course, in reality, people do not think this way no matter how rational they are. This is the reverse ought/is fallacy.

 

[stilicho]

Or let's say that I owned and lived on a thousand acres of forested land that I choose to preserve in a near pristine state. What's to stop some objectivist lumber company executive from deciding that I am acting "in a sub-human manner", and that "it is no longer proper for

to survive nor to be happy"?

This is why I want to run the police force in the New Objectivist State. Practically unfettered authority to determine your status as a human being.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I did not propose such. I said that the homesteading of unowned land was a rational process, and that those who were there previously and did not claim land by the principle of owning added value had no legitimate claim to it.

Ownership does not derive from just being there.

They weren't "just being there". Your concept of Native American history is as simplistic as Ayn Rand's.

 

[Twiler]

I did not propose such. I said that the homesteading of unowned land was a rational process, and that those who were there previously and did not claim land by the principle of owning added value had no legitimate claim to it.

Ownership does not derive from just being there.

Where do these rules come from?

 

[Dinwar]

What if the country next door decides that you aren't using the land in your country properly so they invade to take it?

That would be an initiation of force, wouldn't it? And because the government is supposed to protect us from that, it would use force to stop said initiation of force. Objectivisim is not a pacifistic philosophy, nor does it advocate the dissolution of the armed forces. Rand herslef gave a presentation at the graduation of one West Point class (the first essay in "Philosophy: Who Needs It").

Or let's say that I owned and lived on a thousand acres of forested land that I choose to preserve in a near pristine state. What's to stop some objectivist lumber company executive from deciding that I am acting "in a sub-human manner", and that "it is no longer proper for

to survive nor to be happy"?

Well, Objectivism for one. If you're not slaughtering people, but rather exercising your rights as a property owner, any attack against you would be an initiation of force, and would violate Objectivist principles. This isn't just a theoretical issue, by the way--my grandfather did this with a 20-acre woods on his property, and more than once has called the police to remove tespassers. So I actually have some experience in this matter.

Do you have to be an Objectivist to object to federal subsidies of the agricultural sector?

Did I, or anyone, ever say you did? No. So this is irrelevant at best, a straw man at worst.

I've heard a lot of proposals on how this would work and none of them are feasible.

And I disagree. Given the level of support for your position that you've presented, that's a sufficient counter--we've both presented mere opinions without any supporting evidence, after all.

It places the adherent into indefensible positions and fools him into thinking that others who agree with him on some point (even for the "right" reasons) means that this dogma may be applied with equal ease to all others.

I'm unaware of any serious student of Objectivism that believes that convincing others, even those who agree with him, will be easy. In fact, recent events show that it's incredibly difficult. So I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it's certainly not Objectivism.

No. What's good for one's life ought to require a long-term perspective. Of course, in reality, people do not think this way no matter how rational they are. This is the reverse ought/is fallacy.

Completely missed the intention of my post. I was countering one of the most common, and one of if not the most rediculous, alleged counter-arguments to Objectivist morality. I'm not saying that everyone WILL view things from a long-range perspective--only that they SHOULD, and that short-term gains obtained by means that will destroy you in the long run are not supported, in any way, by Objectivist ethics. Whether people practice this is irrelevant--the philosophy does not support such actions, which was my point.

This is why I want to run the police force in the New Objectivist State. Practically unfettered authority to determine your status as a human being.

Not even CLOSE to being an accurate portrayal of Objectivism. If this is your level of understanding, you really should stop trying to poke holes in it--you don't even know what you're aiming at, much less how to hit it! The police in an Objectivist society would be EXTREMELY limited in their powers, specifically to the prosecution of those who violate the rights of others (and those are explicitely spelled out, in numerous places, and the reasons why clearly spelled out, so this doesn't amount to granting anyone any extra power). While the precise limits are sometimes debated, the idea that the police decide who is and is not human is rediculous, and the fact that you seem to think Objectivism supprots this shows an astounding lack of understanding of the philosophy on your part (particularly because you're trying to argue against it). Seriously, this is akin to trying to counter evolution by arguing that it's random chance.

They weren't "just being there". Your concept of Native American history is as simplistic as Ayn Rand's.

I'm unaware of Rand saying anything on the subject other than a few off-hand comments. If you know of any essays where she specifically addresses Native American history, please let me know.

To be clear, though, no matter what happened in the past the evaluation of the events is an application of the theory, not a fundamental aspect of the theory. The idea of property rights being inviolate is the main issue. Yes, the original European collonists violated the rights of the natives. The natives also violated the rights of the Europeans. It's a complete mess, and untangling it would be a lifetime's work for a historian, an ethical philosopher (meaing one specializing in ethics), a team of archaeologists, and innumerable publishers. We're not going to work it out here, and this is one of those areas where disagreement with Rand is acceptable in O'ism--we're disagreeing on how to apply the principles, but the fundamental principles are the same.

 

[MichaelM]

Where do these rules come from?

From the logic I outlined here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7969386#post7969386

 

[Twiler]

From the logic I outlined here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7969386#post7969386

Can you explain how the conclusion you reach is derived from pure logic? All I'm seeing is a bunch of unwarranted assumptions, and reasoning from them, rather than reasoning from the logical axioms.

 

[Hellbound]

So.

There's a moderate-sized moutain community.

I own a plot of land that happens to be in one of the passes leading into town. By keeping my eye out for opportunity, I later aquire, through voluntary exchange, the plot of land that sits astride the other pass out of town.

Now, I put up a fence, and simply demand a toll of $1000 per trip for anyone who wishes to cross my land.

There's no other way into or out of town (short of climbing the mountains, or a helicopter).

So how would this be handled? Is it perfectly fine for me to, essentially, starve most of the town to death (those who can't afford a helicopter or my tolls)? I have not initiated the use of any force, except as explicitly allowed (to maintain control and use of my own property). I got everything I have by voluntary exchange.

What if I let everyone use the roads across my land for free, unless you're black? Then I simply tell you that you can't use my land?

To question another part of the proposition, who decide whether or not I'm "adding value" to my property? Suppose there are 10 individuals who all buy plots of land covered in timber. 8 start logging operations, producing lumber and timber products for the local community. The other two simply own the land, doing nothing with it but keeping others off it. Which one is adding value?

 

[MichaelM]

They weren't "just being there". Your concept of Native American history is as simplistic as Ayn Rand's.

"just being there means living off of the wildlife and vegetation that was "just there" instead of utilizing the land to produce sustenance, the process of which augments the value of the land that was just there.

I did not deny that some of the previous inhabitants did create permanent communities and enhance the productiveness of the land. Killing the peaceable ones or confiscating their land was the same crime it would be against anyone else.

But when those that did not tolerate the homesteading of unowned land by the settlers raided their homesteads and killed them, it was they who were the criminals and the settler's rights that were violated.

Accusing all settlers and justifying all of the previous inhabitants without distinctions based on what they actually did or did not do and on what is or is not property is a form of bigotry as bad as any other.