Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

When your "exceptions" are Imperial Germany, Imperial France, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Spain, Communist Russia, those are pretty HUGE exceptions.

And again, Rand wasn't knocking individuals fighting for what they believed. Her whole argument was against using the State to impose it on people.

And imposing has a specific definition. For instance, while I do not know for a fact what her views on Civil Rights 1964 were, I don't think she would have had an issue with the federal government enforcing equality before the law on states. In this case she should (again I don't know) have argued that on a State level people were imposing their beliefs through the State on others to deprive them of their rights. In my interpretation of her writings, using the federal government to stop this would have been allowable. She would have drawn the line with affirmative action, because that is the state trying to impose its will on individuals.

Now again, I am not trying to convert you, you might not agree with Rand's position, but I am trying to inform you that how you have portrayed Rand is wrong.

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

No, actually you are trying to spin Rand into what you would like me and others to belive she said and wrote.
Unfortunatly, I know better

I hesitate to sak,,but my curiosity will not aslow me not to...

using the federal government to stop this would have been allowable

What in her writings would lead you to belive this was what Rand beleived ?

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Here is Rand in a nutshell talking about rights. What is your issue and where is the hidden fascism?

"Any group or 'collective,' large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. In a free society, the 'rights' of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application of these individual rights to a specific undertaking... A group, as such, has no rights.

"Any doctrine of group activities that does not recognize individual rights is a doctrine of mob rule or legalized lynching... A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. In the issue of rights, as in all moral issues, there can be no double standard.

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

I will teach you to fish instead of giving you a fish

When discussing objective ethics, what diod Rand say about person A's responsibilty to person C, when given the unltimatum by person B ?

(A hint, it had to do with choosing between ones own safety, and the safety of another....read especially what she said about how "Rights" did or did not enter into it)

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

It is important to put into context, her perception of "Rights"
Once you do that, what you posted ends up meaning the exact opposite of what you think it does

I invite you to do the same Homework i gave Chickie, and get back to me

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

It is important to put into context, her perception of "Rights"
Once you do that, what you posted ends up meaning the exact opposite of what you think it does

I invite you to do the same Homework i gave Chickie, and get back to me

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Nope, you are prevaricating. Show me what you believe her definition of rights are and how they are somehow leading to the opposite of what it says.

If you can't then you are full of it and you would be laughed out of any real debate.

Originally Posted by ricechickie

She said that no one has a responsibility to another, no matter what the ultimatum. Now, if Person A valued Person C above themselves, then it would be proper and ethical and selfish to protect Person C.

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Ayn Rand On Emergencies

Ok, I'll do your work for you

This interview speaks volumes

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Uhm, what is your issue with this? I don't think you understand what she said.