Rand's Strange Answers
By coincidence, just yesterday I discovered Ayn Rand Answers (referenced below by Mr. Tucker) at the library and checked it out.
So far, I've been surprised at how much I like Rand on so many things. I had become so used to ignoring some of her warmongering and libertarian-hating followers that I had forgotten how good she can be when she is good.
Still, she said some odd things (or maybe she didn't say them, as Dr. Reisman suggests). Consider these questions and answers on gun control:
What is your opinion on gun control laws?
I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it's not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, noncriminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It's not an important issue, unless you're ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn't very practical.
What is your attitude toward gun control?It's a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people--they are not carried for hunting animals--and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don't know how the issue is to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.
So much for the right to one's own life! The thinking here appears to be so confused that I hope the editor somehow mangled what she actually said.
Rand is also confusing (at least in this book) on the value to be given potential human life. On page 4, she says retarded people don't have rights because they are "unable to function rationally." Nonetheless, she says, such people are "entitled to protection" because "they may improve and become partly able to stand on their own." Just thirteen pages later, however, Rand says abortion is an absolute right because we must "never confuse an actuality with a potentiality."
Comments (54)
Pete Canning
I wouldn't be surprised if those quotes are 100% accurate.
Published: March 6, 2006 8:08 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Actually, Rand's position on gun control laws makes perfect sense (for her), given her criticisms of anarchism and her defense of the State, but we may never know for sure now. As ludicrous as it sounds, Rand held that the defense of our rights is placed under objective control by assigning that role to the State.
Some of the confusion about the value of human life may be cleared up if you consider that even a retarded person's life is actual for Rand, albeit limited from the norm by unlucky genetics, in a way that the unborn's is not.
It is important to keep in mind that these are off-the-cuff answers for Rand, at least insofar as they weren't altered by Mayhew, and not her carefully considered written opinions. Still, they are her opinions and she sometimes had a distressing tendency to mistake her every opinion on a subject as philosophical truth, even on musical taste and such issues.
Published: March 6, 2006 8:31 AM
Laurence Vance
Strange answers from a strange woman. Truth does not begin with Ayn Rand, as so many of her followers think. Truth begins with Jesus Christ, who is the Truth.
Published: March 6, 2006 9:27 AM
Billy Beck
These remarks on gun control only highlight the mystery of why she ever bothered with the character of Ragnar Danneskjold.
Published: March 6, 2006 9:32 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Laurance... Doesn't your comment strike you as more than a little ironic? Criticizing one group for thinking the truth begins with their chosen figure while at the same time proclaiming the truth to come from your chosen figure?
Published: March 6, 2006 9:36 AM
David
"Still, they are her opinions and she sometimes had a distressing tendency to mistake her every opinion on a subject as philosophical truth, even on musical taste and such issues."
Actually, people who don't understand the nature of philosophy tend to group her opinions on non-philosophical matters in with Objectivism.
Ayn Rand was clear on the fact that her stances on politics, economics, psychology, etc, are applications of philosophy, not part of Objectivism or philosophy at all.
With regard to subjective values like musical tastes, Ayn Rand wrote in The Romantic Manifesto that no rational explanation of musical tastes can be given at all, so no moral judgement is possible in this area.
People who claim otherwise are making an at-best ignorant - or at worst dishonest and malicious smear.
Published: March 6, 2006 9:48 AM
Nathan Shepperd
I may not have read any of her work, but the things mentioned about her make me wonder why she is so highly regarded. It it just because her novels hit the spot and inspired people?
Published: March 6, 2006 9:50 AM
Nathan Shepperd
On second thoughts, perhaps I should just read some of her books and see what I think...
Published: March 6, 2006 9:53 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
David... I don't think she was as clear as you claim. Perhaps you could point me to some passages in which she was? Not merely in her theoretical writings, mind you, but in her so-called non-philosophical conclusions?
It seems to me that Ayn Rand very often seemed rather certain about her conclusions as following from her philosophical position. Her apodictic pronouncements on music are merely one example (although I'll grant you that her apodictic pronouncements may bely her theoretical claims).
Published: March 6, 2006 9:56 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
By the way, why the need to paint me as ignorant or intentionally being dishonest and maliciously smearing Rand? The former is false and you certainly do not have enough evidence for the latter. In fact, as I've explicitly stated on many occasions, I have great admiration for many of Rand's ideas.
Published: March 6, 2006 9:57 AM
David
Well, the fact is that Ayn Rand did not make any "apodictic" pronouncements regarding music - in fact, she said the very opposite of the lies her enemies have spread.
I don't have the exact quotes in front of me at work, but if you are spreading hearsay about her writing without ever having read her actual views, well, what would you call that?
Besides the Romantic Manfiesto, Dr Peikoff has several anecdotes in "Understanding Objectivism" where he talks about the differences in aesthetic tastes between him and Rand (!) and why they are a non-issue.
Published: March 6, 2006 10:10 AM
David
"Truth begins with Jesus Christ, who is the Truth."
"On second thoughts, perhaps I should just read some of her books and see what I think..."
...and that is the difference between a dogmatist and someone who uses reason. If more people actually bothered to read the bible, we might have more of the latter.
Published: March 6, 2006 10:14 AM
Roy W. Wright
Truth begins with Jesus Christ, who is the Truth.
Good grief. I am an ardent believer in Jesus Christ, even his literal godhood, but it cheapens the idea of truth to say that it originates from some being, divine or not.
Published: March 6, 2006 10:25 AM
Stefan Karlsson
The official Objectivist (Objectivist with a big "O", i.e. ARI-affiliated) Capitalism web site is much more strongly pro-gun rights than Rand was in this "Q&A":
"Guns, Self-defense, and the Second Amendment
Is the right to own a gun based on the second amendment?
No. The right to own guns is not based on the second amendment. If there were no second amendment in the U.S. Constitution, one would still possess a right to own a weapon of self-defense, which in today's context, means a firearm, i.e., a gun.
What is the basis of the right to own a gun for self-defense?
The right to own a firearm, is based on the right to self-defense, i.e., the right to those means to defend oneself against those who wish to destroy one's life. The right to self-defense is itself is a corollary of the right to life (a corollary is here defined as a self-evident implication of a general principle).
It would be absurd to say one has the right to life, but does not have the right to the means necessary to protect that life. It would be like saying one has the right to life, but not the right to purchase food. Yet, this is what opponents to the right to own a gun are really against: the right to life.
Unfortunately, it is the right to life, that is ignored in the debate over the right to bear arms, both by its opponents, and by its so-called defenders! As Alexander Maher writes in Capitalism Magazine:
"The field of battle on which gun control should be fought is exactly on this issue: man's rights. Statistical arguments on gun control are a red herring -- as the leftists' appeals to hungry children or the environmentalists' appeals to clean parks are also meant to distract their opponents from the fundamental issues at stake. While the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other defenders of the right to bear arms argue over statistics and interpreting the Constitution, the real issues remain untouched and are sacrificed to the enemies of our freedom."
How is the right to self-defense applied under capitalism?
Under capitalism, it is the government's job to use force to defend its citizen's rights; however, government is not omnipotent, and it is not omnipresent: it cannot be everywhere. In many cases the protective forces of government cannot arrive to a criminal situation in time to prevent an irreversible situation, i.e., such as a murder. As such, every peaceful citizen has the right to those means necessary to protect themselves in emergency situations, until the police can arrive to 'takeover', i.e., an intrusion by a would be rapist when a woman is alone in ones apartment.
Isn't owning a gun inherently evil?
No. Evil and good are moral terms that apply to entities that can make moral choices. A gun is a non-volitional object. Guns have no power of choice; they simply act according to their identity, their nature. Unlike a gun, the user of a firearm possesses free-will, and can be morally judged for his actions. It is only the user of a gun who is good or evil: a woman who uses a gun to shoot a man wishing to rape her is acting selfishly to save her life -- and is judged as good; a bank robber using a gun to rob a bank is acting irrationally and selflessly (by placing himself in such a predicament, and attempting to achieve values by theft) -- and is judged as evil. To say that a gun is intrinsically evil, because it can be used by criminals -- and corrupt governments -- to rob peaceful citizens, is like saying water is evil because people can drown in it."
In the end however, they distort the libertarian position by claiming they favor private nuclear weapons, even though Rothbard said nukes are inherently illegitamate:
"Does the right to bear arms, include the right to privately owned nuclear weapons as the 'Libertarians' insist.
No. There is no right to bear weapons like a gun, outside of the right to life (whether for self-defense, or hunting, etc.). A corollary of a principle (such as the right to bear arms) cannot violate the principle on which it hierarchically depends upon (the right to self-defense). A nuclear weapon -- i.e., an atomic bomb -- is a weapon of mass destruction. There is no such thing as the right to mass destruction, as it lies in contradiction to the right to self-defense. One does not defend oneself against a mugger by tossing a nuclear bomb.
Nuclear weapons are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons of total offense, that render (in the present context) all weapons of self-defense useless. Such a 'right to own a nuclear weapon' would in practice turn the right to self-defense into a chimera. After all, how does one defend oneself against a nuclear bomb? By 'ducking for cover'?"
Published: March 6, 2006 10:33 AM
Jon Roth
>>>Strange answers from a strange woman. Truth does not begin with Ayn Rand, as so many of her followers think. Truth begins with Jesus Christ, who is the Truth.
>>>Posted by: Laurence Vance at March 6, 2006 09:27 AM
Laurence, if I weren't already a Christian, I'm pretty sure your comment would have brought me there. For one, the austrians i've met don't like Rand much (refer to the Sociology of Ayn Rand by Rothbard). Your ignorance of this fact led you to make the sort of trite, uninformed and confrontational arguments I’ve come to expect from Christians.
Published: March 6, 2006 10:41 AM
ef67HgVW
"a bank robber using a gun to rob a bank is acting irrationally" - not necessarily. Are we ascribing 'irrational' to him because he is acting against everyone else's self-interest (in the same way people talk about other people somehow 'needing' to be punished)? I accept some kind of prisoners' dilemma argument for his irrationality, but it still might be completely rational and in his own interests (the risks/rewards might be known and acceptable to him). "attempting to achieve values by theft" - he's trying to get money by theft, and if he's good enough, it might work.
I think the greatest irony is that Rand is actually shockingly collectivist.
"how does one defend oneself against a nuclear bomb?" - by getting a bomb of your own... by threatening mutual assured destruction.
Published: March 6, 2006 11:56 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
David... I've read much, but not all, of Ayn Rand's work, including but not limited to her four major fictional works, The Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy: Who Needs It, The Anti-Industrial Revolution, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Romantic Manifesto, The Art of Fiction, The Art of Nonfiction, Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, and even Peikoff's Objectivism. While I can't cite you passages offhand without doing some digging for them, I distinctly remember reading her criticizing certain kinds of music in no uncertain terms. Perhaps I am wrong, but from my understanding of Rand she would probably have inferred from my taste in music - which ranges from classical to rock and punk and heavy metal - that I am a primitivist, tribalist, whim-worshipper because of the rhythms and other features of the latter sort of music.
Published: March 6, 2006 12:05 PM
Person
At least the first Q/A seems mistranscribed. She's asked about "gun control", but responds completely as if the question were about registration only, rather than, e.g., banning specific kinds of weapons or restricting their use, which is what most discussion of "gun control" referes to.
Published: March 6, 2006 12:13 PM
David
For Ayn Rand on music see: Rand's tolerance towards different artistic tastes
This is what Peikoff said about the "Beethoven Myth" on his radio show:
"If it were true that Ayn Rand kicked out of her circle or denounced or
would not tolerate anyone who disagreed with her on things like music and
painting, I'd like you to account for my continued existence as a close
friend of hers for over thirty years plus being designated as heir.
"I loved Beethoven. I have a vast Mozart collection of which she knew
perfectly well. I love Somerset Maugham whom she hated. [ ...]
"She knew in great detail of the conflicts -- such conflicts or
disagreements as there were -- and as long as you could specify what you
liked in terms that were understandable in reason (and that were not an
assault on reason, as I indicated to you before) there's no such thing.
It's a complete, total lie."
Published: March 6, 2006 12:48 PM
Curt Howland
Of course there is a right to own a nuclear weapon, just as there is a right to own a stick of dynamite. Both can kill large numbers of people, or can be made to kill much larger or smaller numbers of people, or they can not kill anyone at all.
They are non-volitional objects. To say I may own one and not the other is to present me with your opinion backed up by force just like any other prohibition.
If a large chunk of plutonium can be prohibited because it could be used to do harm, then there is no right to anything that cannot be so argued and we are left with simple tyranny of the majority all over again.
This is a private matter, solved by private efforts. Just because I don't want one doesn't mean someone else wouldn't want to do so, just like a main Battle Tank or a hand grenade.
But I wouldn't want to be in a position to be billed for the liability insurance for owning one!
Published: March 6, 2006 1:46 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
David... It's nice that Peikoff says that, but is there any evidence for it in Rand's writings and spoken recordings? Particularly, when one moves outside the realm of classical music (Beethoven and Mozart) and high literature?
Also, notice how Eyal Moses cleverly attempts to shift the blame from Rand to her accusers in that article you linked to? Is that really necessary to exonerate her if the evidence is clearly in her favor? I think not. Moreover, even Moses points out that Peikoff and his ARI affiliates are biased.
This book and book review on the subject of Rand and art are interesting in this regard: . Also, there are Rand's views on homosexuality; sees Sciabarra on this.
Published: March 6, 2006 2:38 PM
Paul Edwards
Curt,
I would hope that owners of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction would be considered criminals and therefore uninsurable outcasts outside of the law.
I agree that someone's going to need dynamite or whatever for honest purposes, and hopefully the market can discern these from WDMs, which can have only one purpose and cannot be used selectively for mining, demolition or self-defense.
Published: March 6, 2006 2:40 PM
Phillip Burgmeier
Pointing a gun at someone's head is an inherently coercive act. Having a bomb sitting in your basement that can take out your neighbor's house is the same as having a gun pointed at your neighbor’s head. So how about this... You can have a nuclear bomb or a stick of dynamite only if you store it in a location where everyone it is "pointed" at has agreed to its presence.
Published: March 6, 2006 4:10 PM
averros
Does the right to bear arms, include the right to privately owned nuclear weapons as the 'Libertarians' insist.
There's a valid reason for someone in a libertarian society to posess nuclear weapons: namely, for the self-defense from the aggression by the democratic or totalitarian states, or for defense from extraterrestrial threats such as asteroids.
Nukes are expensive, both to manufacture and to maintain. They're useless without delivery systems (which are *awfully* expensive).
And (being only crudely targetable) they're useless for resolving any conflicts within a libertarian society.
So, in the real life, the only owners of nukes in a libertarian society are going to be large protection agencies or their consortiums.
Published: March 6, 2006 5:10 PM
Sione Vatu
I'm interested in the truth. It does not begin with Jesus Christ (who may or may not have existed), nor with the lies of religion.
The trouble for philosophy and economics is that we are constantly beset with believers and people who substitute faith for reason. They cloud the search for truth with diversions and falsehood. Long ago I asked certain questions of various religionists. They did not answer; could not answer. All they have is quackery and fraud. Better to be an honest atheist and deal with reality as it actually is (not as you wish or dream it to be).
Rand at the personal level is an interesting character. There were all sorts of contrdictions and terrible errors and tragedies in her life- many were self generated. Nevertheless she provided some excellent work and insights.
I note that in the quotes above Rand indicates she is unsure of the correct answer (or was uncertain at the time). "I do not know enough...." & "I don't know..." Reisman's critique of the book warns us about the errors of comission and omission made by the author/editor of said book. We would be best served to avoid making similar errors.
Sione
PS Quoting: "These days I attempt to perfect my life and get on with doing things."
Published: March 6, 2006 5:17 PM
Paul Edwards
averros,
“There's a valid reason for someone in a libertarian society to posses nuclear weapons: namely, for the self-defense from the aggression by the democratic or totalitarian states…�
I can go for defending against asteroids, assuming it’s technically feasible, but as self-defense from a democratic or totalitarian state? Care to elaborate on how the mass murder of men women and children who live under the tyranny of a totalitarian state constitutes self-defense (remembering their “being only crudely targetable�?
Published: March 6, 2006 5:29 PM
Neil Parille
Rand was far from perfect, but she did her share to fight the spread of leftism and support capitalism. I believe that Dr. Raico (never a full Randian) said recently that Rand was "brilliant."
Certainly Rand's worst trait, her prediliction for commenting on subjects that she didn't know much about (such as religion), is unfortunate. Even worse is that her followers, instead of conceeding her weaknesses, are intent on defending every comment she made about writers such as Kant.
Published: March 6, 2006 6:04 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Roger Bissell makes a similar criticism to Reisman's but about Rand's The Art of Fiction here: .
Published: March 7, 2006 12:41 AM
Alex White
I was Reisman's blog and I found a link at to an article where some ARI Randroid is attacking George Reisman, Lew Rockwell and the von Mises Institute for Reisman's review of "Ayn Rand Answers." According to Nicholas Provenzo at the Rule of Reason:
Here's a link to the orginal post:http://tinyurl.com/gpgkr
Published: March 7, 2006 10:34 AM
Laurence Vance
Mr. Plauche, David, Mr. Wright, Mr. Roth, and Sione Vatu—-I don't usually inject religion into these forums but the followers of Ayn Rand seem to make her the fourth member of the Trinity (a Trinity which neither she nor they believe in). Perhaps it is ironic, Mr. Plauche, but Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). And yes, David, I am a dogmatist when it comes to some things, but not without reason. And Mr. Wright, how does it cheapen "the idea of truth" to repeat what Jesus said about himself? And Mr. Roth, I am not ignorant about how Austrians feel about Ayn Rand. Just because the Austrians you have met "don't like Rand much" doesn't mean that your experience is the final word on the subject. Anyway, nothing I said in my comment had anything to do with Austrians liking or not liking Rand. I mentioned her "followers," that's it. And by the way, Mr. Roth, the opening sentence in your comment makes no sense. And Sione Vatu, you characterize religion and religionists with the terms: lies, diversions, falsehood, quackery, and fraud. Fine, that is your opinion. I have heard worse. But to say that Jesus Christ may not have existed proves that you are not the "honest atheist" you claim to be.
Published: March 7, 2006 11:23 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Mr. Vance,
Not all of Rand's followers make her out to be the fourth person of the Trinity, as absurd and incoherent as that notion is, particularly as they do not believe in the Trinity. Granted very many of them do treat her word and those of her "heirs" like Gospel, but not all.
It is never reasonable to be a dogmatist; dogmatism and reason are incompatible opposites. Mr. Vance, you confuse conviction with dogmatism and reason with faith. Perhaps many Objectivists lose sight of these distinctions as well, but so do many Christians. It is perhaps more ironic that Objectivists do, but that is beside the point. What is the point is that your statement was ironic and perhaps even hypocritical in doing what you accused Rand's followers of doing. Your pithy statement was, I think, unnecessary, uncalled for, inflammatory, and arguably off-topic.
Jesus may have said that "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) but there is a reasonable and a dogmatic way to interpret that.
Sione Vatu is not being a dishonest atheist in questioning whether Jesus Christ existed. For one thing, an atheist or even a Jew can distinguish between Jesus Christ and Jesus of Nazareth while doubting the former. The honest atheist can also doubt all or much of what has been written about Jesus Christ, given that it was written long after his death, as fabrication or exaggeration or even sincere delusion. But even a Christian can doubt your dogmatic interpretation as, I take it, some already have on this blog.
Published: March 7, 2006 2:18 PM
Peter
but Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6)
And Lennon said "I am the walrus" (Magical Mystery Tour).
Published: March 7, 2006 8:25 PM
Sione
Laurence
You do not need to deify Ayn Rand to appreciate that she had some important ideas and insights.
For example, I certainly do not deify Ayn Rand or any person, living or deceased. Neither should you.
In my recent post I wanted you to understand that Rand certainly had some important ideas and insights. I also wanted to communicate the message that blind faith is unreliable and avoidable.
It is a matter of choice what YOU believe and YOU are free to believe in it, but it is far preferable to learn and know rather than to have blind unexamined beliefs.
Faith is not a short-cut to knowledge but leads to a short circuit of the mind (paraphrasing a certain Dr. Peikoff).
YOU are letting an emotional attachment to some myths and legends obscure your search for truth. That IS dishonest. Think about it.
Sione
Published: March 8, 2006 6:02 AM
Laurence Vance
Mr. Plauche, 1. I agree that not all of Rand's followers deify her. 2. It has been my experience that men always try to find a "reasonable and a dogmatic way to interpret" something in the Bible when they don't like what it says. 3. I took at face value what Sione said about Christ. Sione, I do agree with you that Rand had "some important ideas and insights," but it is certainly not true that religious people, some of whom write for Mises.org, have "blind unexamined beliefs" and "an emotional attachment to some myths and legends."
Published: March 8, 2006 9:30 AM
Sione Vatu
Laurence
It certainly is true.
Quoting: "Truth begins with Jesus Christ, who is the Truth."
This is as good an example of a blind unexamined belief as can be found. For example, it means that no-one who lived before Jesus knew truth or could tell the truth (unless Jesus was around the show before Jesus actually existed). Truth only begins with Jesus. What an absurdity.
I asked a colleague (Hashim, a Moslem) about your statement. He did not agree. He said Allah is the source of truth and the Prophet Mohammed, peace be on him and his family, is the conduit through which the truth is communicated. So when it comes to religious matters and also rules for living, morality and ethics, he believes the source of truth to be the Prophet's writings, the Koran.
How do you KNOW you are correct and he is wrong? You don't. You just believe, as does he.
And then there is David Solomon (we all affectionately know him as Yiddy). Here is a peaceful and learned man. He has studied Talmudic writings for decades and he disagrees with you both. How do you know that he isn't correct and you are wrong?
And there is also Guang Zhu. Completely different beliefs there. How odd is that!
So I asked Whetu and his belief was completely different again. Even though Whetu is a Christian, his faith has very different interpretations and different standards and rules of behaviour than does yours I'll wager (Jesus was black. His people are black. Sinners are white. Only black people can be saved as the white people are unrepentant persecutors and thus sinners etc. etc.).
Karl agreed with you however. But there are problems with Karl's mob (a mainstream Christian religion). For instance, the Church Elders got very close to proclaiming their belief that Adolph Hitler was the second incantation of Jesus. Just as well they never quite got around to doing that then. Still, at the time they certainly believed in it. Were they correct? How do you know?
Brian agreed with your statement as well. Brian says he is what is known as a born-again Christian. He reckons that ONLY the born-again Christians can be "saved" and that all the other people are "damned", Christian or not. Jesus said so and Jesus is indeed "the Truth." He said he'll pray you are a born-again Christian as is he. I asked him if he is serious about all this saving and damnation stuff and he said he is.
Grant is a Mormon. Do we really need to go there? I do enjoy Doctrine & Covenants 132 and 133 though.
So which has got it right? They can't all be telling the truth. Could they all be wrong?
There was one thing they had in common. None of the faiths are provable or based on a demonstrably correct, coherent system of thought. That is, they can't be reduced to reality or even referenced to reality (ironic then that people make serious decisions according to them, according to the non-real!). There is absolutely no real evidence for them what-so-ever. So all the religionists are wrong after all.
It is interesting to note that the longer you think about it the more likey you are to discover reality and your faith contradict. The honest policy is to go with reality. To do otherwise is indeed dishonest.
There is a fundamental problem with the consequences of faith and belief (as opposed to real knowledge) in practice. People use their faith to justify decisions, any decisions. Imagine making a decision based on an interpretation of an unreliable myth divorced from reality! The consequences are terrifying.
For example, the Bible (which is the Christian's primary source of Jesus stories) contains inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, lies, falsehoods, rorts and certainly has its share of evil. As with religions everywhere, Christianity has been one of the major justifications (if not the actual cause) of death, theft, pillage, murder, racism, genocide, prejudice, torture and war. All of this is based on and justified by one's particular beliefs in the Bible. Incredible and obscene.
Doing evil is an intrinsic part of religion and Christianity is no different to the others in this respect. Speaking from experience and a knowledge of the history of this part of the World (Sth. Pacific), the introduction of Christianity caused much real pain and suffering.
The faster we dispose of the barbaric relic of religion the better things can be. It gets in the way of knowledge. And, yes, it is dishonest. It aint the truth...
Laurence, you draw attention to some religious people who write for the Mises.org. So what. That's irrelevant. That proves nothing about the veracity of religion. All it says is that there are other people who are religious who write for Mises.org, as do you.
BTW was Mises a believer in Christianity? Was he wrong? Why so?
Quoting again: "Truth begins with Jesus Christ, who is the Truth."
Not so. Truth means "corresponding to reality" or a "fact of reality." It is not a deity.
Sione
Published: March 8, 2006 6:33 PM
Roy W. Wright
What in particular do you enjoy about D&C 133?
Published: March 8, 2006 7:21 PM
averros
> I can go for defending against asteroids,
> assuming it’s technically feasible, but as
> self-defense from a democratic or totalitarian
> state? Care to elaborate on how the mass murder
> of men women and children who live under the
> tyranny of a totalitarian state constitutes
> self-defense (remembering their “being only
> crudely targetable�?
Paul, the nukes are more important because of their deterrent role than because of their actual tactical use. If some group in a stateless society posesses nukes and declares the willingness to use them against any state which attacks, innocent victims notwithstanding, this will most likely serve as a sufficient deterrent to prevent any such attack from happening in the first place.
A less charitable (to the "innocent victims") interpretation is that no state can exist without support or non-resistance of its citizens. Those who support are complicit in state's crimes, I think no one's going to challenge that assertion. Those who don't resists are negligent: they allow use of their property in a manner hazardous to neighbours. No matter what kind of tyrrany there is, citizens do have ultimate control over it.
I do not think a libertarian society is defendable against the modern warfare states if it does not have nuclear weapons. I also think that those who take upon themselves the role of the ultimate protectors must be prepared to become pariahs or suicides if they do use these weapons. Some people would do that for their beliefs.
If I see someone pointing a gun at me, I'll try to shoot him first, not pausing to consider his motives; he may be a victim himself (for example, someone holds his family hostage promising release if he kills me), but I have no way to tell that. I cannot be held responsible for killing him even if he is innocent. Those who forced him to take the gun and point at me are the criminals.
Similarly, the ultimate responsibility for killing innocent people in a nuclear retaliation lies on those who ordered the attack on a group which is known to possess the nuclear weapons and which declared that these will only be used in self-defense.
I cannot say that bargaining with the devil is easy, and I really really wish that it would be possible to avoid the need to do that.
Published: March 8, 2006 9:32 PM
Paul Edwards
“Paul, the nukes are more important because of their deterrent role than because of their actual tactical use. If some group in a stateless society posesses nukes and declares the willingness to use them against any state which attacks, innocent victims notwithstanding, this will most likely serve as a sufficient deterrent to prevent any such attack from happening in the first place.�
Is it not hard to imagine subscribing to a private insurance, protection, and courts provider on whose high ethical standards we would depend on that could provide service of this standard and yet at the same time threaten millions of innocent people with death by incineration and radiation poison? Imagine us arguing the ethical superiority of anarchy and yet allowing that such a situation could should or would exist. If that were the fate of Anarchy, which I doubt, I would settle for this crappy state situation we have now and focus my attention strictly on the hereafter.
“A less charitable (to the "innocent victims") interpretation is that no state can exist without support or non-resistance of its citizens. Those who support are complicit in state's crimes, I think no one's going to challenge that assertion. Those who don't resists are negligent: they allow use of their property in a manner hazardous to neighbours. No matter what kind of tyrrany there is, citizens do have ultimate control over it.�
I will challenge your assertion. What you are saying that those who are victimized by their state and who are not already dead or in jail on charges of treason or tax evasion are guilty of the crimes their oppressors commit. I think Kinsella would characterize this as “blaming the victim�. The implication of your philosophy is that every person who ever paid taxes to Washington who did not evade paying those taxes and who did not go to jail for tax evasion is guilty of any murder or war crime committed by Washington or is guilty of supporting any murderous regime that Washington ever financed while that person was paying taxes. In this case it follows that a death penalty on all people paying US taxes is justified. Is this even close to your position?
“I do not think a libertarian society is defendable against the modern warfare states if it does not have nuclear weapons. I also think that those who take upon themselves the role of the ultimate protectors must be prepared to become pariahs or suicides if they do use these weapons. Some people would do that for their beliefs.�
I think you are not used to imagining how a truly free market might deal with the nuclear threat. By now I think we should know that a politician or bureaucrat giving the order to launch a nuclear attack is not concerned about how his lowly subjects would fair as a consequence of his actions. He is merely concerned about himself. I am confident that a free market in defense would provide a service in which this cowardly criminal could know he personally would most certainly suffer the consequences of his actions.
“If I see someone pointing a gun at me, I'll try to shoot him first, not pausing to consider his motives; he may be a victim himself (for example, someone holds his family hostage promising release if he kills me), but I have no way to tell that. I cannot be held responsible for killing him even if he is innocent. Those who forced him to take the gun and point at me are the criminals.�
This is fine, I agree. But we part company if you claim to be justified in bombing an entire neighborhood when you see this same person pointing a gun at you.
“Similarly, the ultimate responsibility for killing innocent people in a nuclear retaliation lies on those who ordered the attack on a group which is known to possess the nuclear weapons and which declared that these will only be used in self-defense.�
I strongly disagree. I hope you will be willing to revisit this position and convince yourself it cannot be justified. From my perspective, your position is so far from being just that it is beyond debate. It amounts to this: “if you murder X, I will murder Y, and you will be responsible for the murder of both X and Y.�
“I cannot say that bargaining with the devil is easy, and I really really wish that it would be possible to avoid the need to do that.�
Averros, bargains with the devil are struck by the minute. They are certainly easily made. These bargains are not necessary and liberty will not come from such deals. At the base of liberty is ethics: respect for property. Willingness to murder is the antithesis of a concern for liberty. The just ends you seek necessarily cannot be obtained through unjust means.
Published: March 9, 2006 12:11 AM
Sione
Roy
Sorry. 133 typed in error. I should have written 132 and S89. Not133. Grant explained the gist of it but I neglected to write the correct citation in my diary.
I enjoyed the commands of 132 for obvious reasons. The motivations of its author are obvious and they aint anything to do with obeying a deity. Joseph Smith justifies himself to enjoy the bodies of plenty of young women- including pubescent 14 year old girls- but his wife, Emma, is not allowed to cleave unto anyone else but Joseph. You've got to love that. I'll bet she appreciated the hypocrisy. So the blokes get to have plenty of ripe young "celestial wives" but the girls are stuck with the one bloke- usually the first bloke who jumped them (BTW the law about these parts considers a married 40 year old man committing a sex act on a 14 year old girl to be rape. What a shocking abuse of a child. And God is supposed to sanction this...?).
S89 is so open to interpretations of one sort or another. Grant has extensive discussions about this with his church colleagues. Sometimes they seriously disagree about some detail or another. He once asked Yiddy for comment. Perhaps he wanted to get a stronger position to argue from. Yiddy is such an arch debater and very clever. I probably should go round there and ask what he said.
In practice S89 is thought to prohibit tea, coffee, alcohol, drugs (not including natural ones though), tobacco, sex (except for the "celestial" kind) and, according to one approach, bans literature from non-Mormon approved sources (not necessarily porn but regular media and apparently music as well- there goes the news and my friends, Split Enz). There was more but that's the essence. I enjoyed S89 as it is so typical of totalitarianist religions and regimes of one sort or another. Those who disobey are on the out. They get to be persecuted. Makes it easy to set up "us" and "them" situations to maintain control over a soft headed mob. The "them" are different. They are evil. As for "us", wees good, but only if youse do as I's sayin' fer you ta do. Amen, brother and pass the ammunition. Pathetic. Still, compared to Grant's outfit there definitely are some who have it worse (for instance, in terms of promoting human misery, Marxism was a much worse religion).
S89 also led to a chuckle as it reminded me of the Mormon girls at university. They were the fastest to put out and get physically involved (secretly) with a guy; any guy (so long as he looked OK and was not of their religion, he was in). I used to ask the ladies whether or not this wasn't a "sin." The deal was that once they were ready to graduate and go back home they'd seek a local Elder to presumably get counselled and forgiven, never to sin again. You see, then it was all the dirty bloke's fault (not). Dirty, naughty, sinning unbeliever he was. Kind of silly and dishonest. Still, it's the type of thing their faith leads (teaches) them to do. They want to get the salacious experience, they need to get away from the strictures for a bit, but they don't want to leave the mob and think for themsleves. Here is the rationalisation and the justification and a great excuse. How dishonest. What a mess. Life can be so much more rewarding than that. Simpler as well. They were very unhappy people that lot. Mucked up.
So in S89 and 132 we have a fellow with a seer stone running around the show telling everyone he has a direct communion with a spirit-monster/god and commanding them with special revelations and tall stories. Meanwhile he gets stuck into the young girls. Pretty sordid. Weak excuse.
How can people fall for this kind of stuff? It is so silly.
Talofa!
Sione
PS "Keep life simple. It's easier to understand that way." - Ratu
Published: March 9, 2006 1:04 AM
Paul Edwards
Sione,
You've made some good points, and i won't be poking much in the way of holes in them today.
But i will put this question to you: To what do you ascribe the existence of reality? Of the intricate laws of physics or biology; or man's ability to act, reason, argue and to recognize a valid argument, truth, justice and perhaps morality? To what will you attribute your own value of human life besides that you value your own?
When you answer these questions, you will be faced with this: your answers will suffer from the same weakness which you are leveling against the others. There is nothing wrong with that; just observe: there is more to truth than what can be demonstrated via a clever man-made argument and what can be pointed to and seen with our eyes. And whatever those truths are, the fact that so many have missed them will not diminish them one iota.
Published: March 9, 2006 1:24 AM
Roy W. Wright
How can people fall for this kind of stuff?
I decided to "fall for it" of my own volition, after serious examination and an honest search for the truth. But I'm not really interested in debating it here, and I respect and certainly understand your unbelief. As I often tell my best friend (an agnostic/borderline atheist), I have a lot more respect for atheists than most religious people, and there's often more truth in atheism (insofar as it frees one from certain prejudices) than in religion.
But I do wish this hadn't turned into a religious discussion.
Published: March 9, 2006 3:17 AM
Roy W. Wright
Er, go ahead and remove the "certain" from in front of "prejudices."
Published: March 9, 2006 3:18 AM
Laurence Vance
Sione, you said: "This is as good an example of a blind unexamined belief as can be found. For example, it means that no-one who lived before Jesus knew truth or could tell the truth (unless Jesus was around the show before Jesus actually existed." The answer is that Jesus Christ, as a member of the eternal Godhead, has always been around. That is what any orthodox Christian believes, based on the Bible.
As for your Muslim colleague, he is simply wrong about Allah and Mohammed, again, based on the Bible (I hope you told him your feelings about religion like you told me, just don't try to tell a Muslim that in a Muslim country out in public).
Replying that the beliefs of orthodox Christianity are nonsense will not change anything. Someday you will see, but I guess you don't believe in a judgment.
I do, however, agree with Roy about having respect for atheists instead of some Christians I know. I also agree with Roy about this turning into a religious discussion so this will be my last comment. I only brought up religion in the first place because the devotion to Mrs. O'Connor (sorry, I meant Miss Rand) by some of her followers is like a religion.
Published: March 9, 2006 12:36 PM
Adem Kupi
"Pointing a gun at someone's head is an inherently coercive act. Having a bomb sitting in your basement that can take out your neighbor's house is the same as having a gun pointed at your neighbor’s head. So how about this... You can have a nuclear bomb or a stick of dynamite only if you store it in a location where everyone it is "pointed" at has agreed to its presence.
Posted by: Phillip Burgmeier at March 6, 2006 04:10 PM"
Exactly. Well, sort of. :)
Owning a nuke is perfectly moral. Storing it where it could harm anyone who isn't threatening you with harm isn't... but only if you let them know that they are in harms way. Which sounds weird, but it's the threat of violence which is coercive about pointing a gun at someone's head.
If I pointed a gun at someone, and they didn't know I was pointing it at them, there's no coercive act until I shoot.
Which is normally a pickayune kind of argument, but kind of relevant to the ownership of area effect weapons.
Published: March 10, 2006 12:59 PM
Roy W. Wright
Of course, if no one knows the nuke exists, the whole point is rather moot...
Published: March 10, 2006 2:38 PM
Peter
As for your Muslim colleague, he is simply wrong about Allah and Mohammed, again, based on the Bible
And the Muslim fellow could say "As for Laurence Vance, he is simply wrong about Jesus, again, based on the Koran", with equal validity.
just don't try to tell a Muslim that in a Muslim country out in public
Why not?
Published: March 10, 2006 7:15 PM
averros
Paul - you really do not need to tell me that WMDs are evil, and shouldn't be created in the first place. I'm in full agreement with you on that.
But the question remains about how to prevent destruction of an (initially weak, fresh from a major crisis following any radical change of regime) emerging libertarian society from surrounding militarist states which are known to initiate wars (and use nuclear weapons preemptively, as US did) in order to squash any ideological competitors.
Besides, we're moving in a direction where destructive power comparable to the power of nuclear weapons will be routinely available to individuals in form of gene-engineered biological weapons, and (later, with the development of private spaceflight) smallish asteroids which only need some course correction to hit the spot.
Nuclear propulsion remains the only viable option for fast interplanetary transit; it means that the market will develop it sooner or later; but it also means that we'll have slow-burning atomic bombs which could be potentially used as offensive weapons in private hands. Heck, a jumbo Boeing with full tanks releases enough energy on a flight into terrain to be comparable with a smallish tactical nuke.
So it is rather pointless to discuss if nukes will be in private hands or not - sooner or later their equivalents will be, one way or another.
There's no question that defense from states requires significant military capability -- the fate of earlier semi-libertarian communities was, pretty much, to end in conquest by much better armed states. The choice of weapons must, therefore, be dictated by military considerations rather than ideology. One cannot have ethics if he's dead.
And I still think that all citizens of a democratic country bear responsibility for actions of its government. Even the most obnoxiously totalitarian regimes crumble as soon as a noticeable part of a general populace turns against them. Been there, done that.
If you let bandits to camp on your property and lob missiles at your neighbour, don't be surprised that you'll get some fire back. You can even get killed if you're still there. Life is not fair.
The best self-defense for the innocents of the belligerent state is to defect and/or to fight for thier own freedom. Few million anti-communist Russians did that in WWII (only to be delivered back to Stalin by the oh-so-well-meaning British and American commanders, making the resulting mass slaughter worse than Holocaust -- see "operation Keelhaul").
[There was a fiction book by Henry Kuttner which featured a stateless society where every private citizen could afford nuclear weaponry and which, consequently, evolved into a heavily decentralized socity where towns tried not to grow too much and everyone was really really trying to be inoffensive - can't remember the title, unfortunately, and it's out of print for 20 or so years.]
Published: March 11, 2006 5:12 AM
The ghost of Wolf DeVoon
The ultimate tyranny is habit nestled in parochial expectation.
Published: March 11, 2006 7:16 AM
Paul Edwards
Hi Averros,
If I said or implied such a thing as “WMDs are evil, and shouldn't be created in the first place�, then I apologize. I would not intentionally put forward such a trivial proposition or suggest you wouldn’t agree. Similarly, I did not mean to suggest that they would not find their way in private hands. As far as I know, all things do.
What I did mean to argue, which I am not certain we have agreement on, is that it is not justifiable to point them at or threaten innocent lives anywhere with them on the pretext of self-defense. This is not to say it won’t happen, it is to say it is a contradiction of libertarian ethics and therefore fundamentally incoherent to argue in favor of such a thing.
Furthermore, I dispute the practical utility of such a policy, on a number of grounds. I suggest that there are far more practical and direct means of defending against an attack of WDMs, of which one I didn’t mention was not aggressing against other nations and races in the first place. Successful defense against aggressive nation states is a matter of infiltration and assassination techniques against top officials of aggressing states in conjunction with their foreknowledge of their likely demise if they carry out, or perhaps even express the intent to carry out such a crime.
Finally, to the question of the practicality of a people’s revolution against a tyrannical state, I will refer to your comments regarding those who did so against Stalin,
“The best self-defense for the innocents of the belligerent state is to defect and/or to fight for their own freedom. Few million anti-communist Russians did that in WWII (only to be delivered back to Stalin by the oh-so-well-meaning British and American commanders, making the resulting mass slaughter worse than Holocaust -- see "operation Keelhaul").�
As your example shows, defectors and freedom fighters risk being murdered, even by states that are the so-called adversaries of their oppressors. It is not reasonable to argue that unless you put your life at extreme risk by resisting your oppressors, you are in fact a co-conspirator with your oppressors and therefore culpable for the crimes carried out by the state which oppresses them. Therefore, it is not valid to argue that WDMs actually will not kill innocent people if it merely kills those living under the tyrant who threatens to or has initiated a WDM attack against us.
Published: March 11, 2006 11:18 AM
Sione
Whoops! I should not have gone on holiday this week. There is a bit for me to answer for. Fair enough.
--
Religion is important. It has been for generations and that is likely to continue to be the case for some generations to come. It is one of the most fascinating topics available for investigation and discussion. There is no reason to be ashamed of that, nor to resist thorough examination, discussion and consideration of religious thought, practice and consequence.
Paul asks: "To what do you ascribe the existence of reality?"
The answer is, to reality.
Reality exists and is real. That's ALL the evidence that is available to anyone. That's all there is available to experience or to discover. Beyond that there is nothing. What is, is. What is not, does not exist.
When we talk about seeking evidence we are asking to be shown something that exists in reality. When we discuss proofs of a concept we are discussing references to reality that underlie the concept, that tie it to reality. Evidence (which necessarily must come from reality). Truth means corresponding to reality. In other words, fact of reality.
Proofs or evidence presuppose reality. That's the point right there. Everything that exists (or is), presupposes reality. The existence of reality is axiomatic and ostensive.
"In the Beginning was the Word..." But before you can have word (or thought let alone concept, meaning or truth) you need air to transmit it, an ear to hear it, a mouth to speak it and a brain to conceive of it. For word to exist, there are other things that necessarily must already be in existence. Reality must exist. Word (or thought or deed) presupposes the existence of the real. Perhaps the authors of the Bible should have written, "In the beginning was reality. Then our story begins."
Knowledge is hierarchical. Knowledge is knowledge of something. Knowledge is knowledge of aspects of or entities in reality. So reality comes first. Therefore it is invalid to ask what precedes reality. The question has no referent in reality and hence is unanswerable. In a way it's analogous to asking how much gravity weighs. Unanswerable because it has no real meaning.
A common approach is to invert the knowledge hierarchy and place knowledge prior to reality. In fact even many non-religious people such as Neils Bohr thought this way. In the religious case the word or truth or light or spirit-monster/god or creator or prime mover is introduced and claimed to exist in the absence of the existence of reality. This entity then calls reality into existence.
The trouble with that approach is the arbitrary requirement for the existence of a non-existent, non-reality reality and an associated entity (also non-reality based) which is then supposed to create reality (or rather, to explain it) from a basis of being non-existent and unreal. BUT such an arrangement raises all the same sorts of questions as those you ask about reality. For example, why does the spirit exist and why did it create everything and make it all real. How and why does nothing make something? It's a holy mystery. Yuck!
An extension of this approach also takes the man-made deducted concepts of good and evil and ascribes them to a spirit consciousness (which is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and good). Indeed, another inversion of the hierarchy of knowledge!
What we clever, imaginative human beings achieved here was to introduce a once removed level of unreality and move the questions back up one rung. No answer to be found about reality in unreality sad to say.
Reality is axiomatic and requires no further explanation, a most robust understanding.
Proceeding from this base the remaining questions can be answered thus:
Paraphrasing:- To what do you ascribe the intricate laws of physics or biology?
The "laws" are man made concepts. Man uses his abilities to reason to discover and understand aspects of reality. This forms his knowledge of reality.
Entities in reality behave in certain ways according to what they are. In other words they behave according to their real attributes or particular features. We are in the position of identifying what the attributes are and what the result of those attributes are. We examine how things interact and what the consequences of those interactions are. Sometimes we may be able to learn from those, determine certain relationships and hence form concepts. Some of these are elevated to the status of "laws." But reality does not "obey" our "laws." Our "laws" are only valid if they correspond with aspects of reality that we have identified and learned something about. that is, they represent knowledge we have extracted from reality.
Reality is vast. There are untold entities. Many of them. They all possess particular characteristics and attributes. Some are surprising and outstanding. How they interact sure can be intricate. It can be very subtle. Sometimes even obvious. That's how reality is and it's one of the wonderful things that makes living so worthwhile.
Reality exists and we can learn about it. My grandfather used to say, "You can know it." Sometimes when he found out about something new he would say, "And now we know it."
An important point is that scientists learn about specialised aspects of reality and then share that knowledge with the rest of us. Reality is present before science can begin. It is present before knowledge can be acquired. Science corresponds to the hierarchy as there is no other option.
Paraphrasing:- To what do you ascribe man's ability to act, reason, argue and to recognize a valid argument, truth, justice and perhaps morality?
Our ability to reason is one of the results of the possession of a massively populated, highly parallel distributed system of interconnected cells; the brain. The processes going on within the brain result in the abilities of which you write. These processes are biological (chemical/ electro-chemical, unlikely to be nuclear or quantum) and knowable, although presently not completely understood. The amazing nature of what is going on in the brain is gradually being discovered. Progress is allowing an appreciation for what is happening and eventually we will indeed know how human brains operate.
Lately there has been rapid progress in neuroscience. Some of the new discoveries will require overhaul of elements of psychiatry, psychology, the law, medicine and importantly, philosophy. For example, there are elements of philosophy that are already shown to be in contradiction with human nature. Will the philosophers amend their system of thought appropriately in the light of new knowledge?. Interesting stuff. Knowable and understandable.
Man's action is as a result of decisions he makes, an application of reason. No surprises there. The other attributes mentioned in the question (above) are the direct result of application of reason (faulty or not, incorrect or not) and that is a result of the brain's processes, as previously mentioned.
Take morality as an example. This is a concept that is developed as an abstraction of certain facts of reality. There is a chain of thought that leads to conclusions and identifications. You develop a conscious morality in one of three ways. You may accept what other people tell you (after all if a hundred people say the same thing surely they couldn't all be wrong; surely not!) or you may by accept what a prophet, priest or minister says (in other words accepting that a super-natural power determines your morality) or you could start by considering aspects of reality (such as your nature, standards and life) and applying logic from there. The first two options require acceptance of the arbitrary and that which does not exist. The last requires considerable expenditure of intellectual effort and rigorous checking to see that the conclusions one obtains correspond with reality. Hard work! In each case, the resulting thoughts are an expression of reason and that in turn is a result of the operation of the brain. Those processes again!
There is nothing super-natural about any of it. It's all real. What can be concludes is that at the present time there are aspects we understand and those we do not know about. In order to find out more we need to undertake the research. Now how about neuroscience as an interesting research career?
Quoting: To what will you attribute your own value of human life besides that you value your own?
I value my life because it is a human life and I enjoy being alive very much. Other people's lives are valuable to me because they are alive. Also I can interact with them. That adds to my life. It is a benefit as we are social creatures. My direct answer to the question is, I value other people not so much because I value my life but because of what (and who) they are.
In answering questions such as the ones postulated, there is no weakness in saying, "I do not know everything" and "I do not make up stuff to cover for aspects of reality I do not know about." It is superior to try to find out about reality or aspects of it. Don't make things up. If there is no real evidence available for a contention, then what we are dealing with is a dream, or wish, or yearning, or a myth. Such things are sometimes fun but to believe in their veracity is misleading and often very, very dangerous. At minimum they obstruct the pursuit of understanding of aspects of reality. They are best avoided.
Quoting again: "there is more to truth than what can be demonstrated via a clever man-made argument and what can be pointed to and seen with our eyes. And whatever those truths are, the fact that so many have missed them will not diminish them one iota."
There is no more to the truth than absolute correspondence to reality. It does not matter how carefully constructed an argument is, nor how clever, there is no valid way to argue the existence of the non-existent. There is no evidence in reality for the existence of the non-real. You can't use reality to argue the way to another non-real world. Unreality does not exist
Best regards
Sione
Published: March 15, 2006 12:17 AM
Sione
WRT religion Roy said: "I decided to "fall for it" of my own volition, after serious examination and an honest search for the truth."
Roy, this means you took the volitional decision to accept a life of religious belief. From time to time you are likely to find certain religious beliefs contradict aspects of reality. The test is what you do when this happens. Do you accept reality or reject it so that the belief can be maintained intact? In other words, do you reject reality in favour of belief or faith? That would have to be one of THE most difficult decisions a religious person is ever likely to be required to make. Very difficult.
Talofa
Sione
Published: March 15, 2006 12:27 AM
Roy W. Wright
Roy, this means you took the volitional decision to accept a life of religious belief.
Well, I wouldn't put it that way. The lifestyle I live is a result (a side-effect, you might say) of beliefs I have accepted based on evidence.
From time to time you are likely to find certain religious beliefs contradict aspects of reality.
Certainly. Undeniable facts have forced me to reject some of my ill-considered (religious) beliefs on various occasions.
Published: March 15, 2006 1:46 AM
Sione
Roy
In my last post substitute the word "faith" for "belief."
That corresponds more closely with what I was attempting to convey.
Sione
Published: March 16, 2006 2:44 PM
MasterServer
Ayn Rand accepted a need for government. She was not a Libertarian. She pointed out that American democracy was the first instance in which a government had been created as a servant of the people, not its ruler.
She granted that government should be the protector of property rights and this includes the right to one's own life. As such, the government has the power granted to it by the people to defend America and its citizens against its enemies.
Government would have the power to possess nuclear weapons of mass destruction as needed to deter and defend the rights of its citizens.
Citizens must still have the power to own and bear arms to defend their rights (and life), and also against the individuals who misuse government to violate one's rights.
Published: March 8, 2009 5:59 AM