So do I.

Your analysis seems to rest upon the assumption that Objectivist opposition to welfare, taxation, government schools, etc. is based upon the belief that those programs don't work or don't work well enough. While it is true that government programs are inherently inefficient, wasteful and have tons of negative consequences (both intended and unintended) I don't understand those criticisms to be the basis of Rand's position. Instead, I think those programs are all deemed immoral since they are based on the use of theft as their common tool of implementation. That is the common denominator in all of the programs cited by khalling, I think. He/she should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that. Also, I think your rejection of that line of thought is what khalling thinks marks you as a non-objectivist. Again,. I'm not trying to speak for someone else, just trying to clarify.

This sounds like a variation of Pascal's wager. In any event, I assume by choosing that "course" you are also accepting some form of religious belief which mandates some form of ethics or behavior. Accepting those will surely impact your decisions and actions while alive. Those actions, in turn, may lead to negative consequences ranging from trivial to life altering. You will not have "lost nothing."

You keep bringing up your 'bad ass' argument in a poorly reasoned attempt to refute Objectivism. Let me offer you some "claptrap" as cud. :)

All the "bullies" you mention, certainly had no regard for the natural rights of individuals—a rather obvious observation. Objectivism sees those rights as fundamental to the nature of man; but it is not a religion that is imposed, by magical wand, cross, or threat, on others. However, when one of your "bad asses" runs into a group of people that cherish the value of their natural rights, they will see the passion and intelligence of men and women that don't willingly give that up.

That "bullies" exist doesn't negate the philosophy of Objectivism. Just because Objectivism doesn't threaten men with some post-life damnation, doesn't negate the truth of its concepts.

People are...people; some have a better grasp on reality than others.

And what principle would that be? The hatred of the good for being the good?

What does any of this have to do with the origin of religion?

I take posts like this one seriously.

I know-I like to do it too

"They weren't evading anything."
I said they were avoiding them, not evading them. They were saying rights are a human birthright. It's not a stretch to read that claim and ask how did humans come to have agency, the feeling of free will, self awareness, and everything associated with those rights. The Constitution does not address the points. I don't consider that evasive.

"Pick one that is not and defend it. I would like to discuss it with you." Thank you for your interest in actual ideas.

We hire police officers to reduce crime. We make everyone pay for it, even those who would be willing to provide their own security. We'd like to find a way for people don't like it to opt out, but the theory is even if we had the police only respond to people who paid for policing, just having them patrolling benefits everyone. So we make everyone pay. We do the same thing for defending the country against invasion.

Suppose we find that parts of one of those supposedly collectivist programs such as Welfare or education provide the same type of benefit as more policing. Maybe if you provide food and education geared toward a good-paying jobs, a percentage of would-be criminals will focus instead of learning a useful job. The knee-jerk response appears to be "if you want to hire someone to arrest them and jail them, great, but if the approach involves trying to help them that's collectivist." You can show that many gov't attempts to help people fail. You can show that many gov't attempts to catch criminals while respecting citizens' rights fail. But it doesn't mean the very concept of gov't providing help and/or policing are wrong.

We have a huge problem with collectivism, esp with middle-class citizens who look to the gov't to take care of their life decisions or basic needs. This is part of why gov't is several times most costly and intrusive than it needs to be.

My concern about collectivism, however, doesn't make opposed to anything the gov't does that sounds at all like helping someone.

Sorry. I just couldn't resist yanking his chain. Now, back to your regular broadcast.

Fair enough. But why not explain why it is purportedly "claptrap"? On in its face isn't Rand's argument worthy of refutation?

OK you two-gary- this doesn't have to be personal for you. it's personal to robbie. robbie you know the drill in here. it would be nice if we could back to natural rights on this post

Don't get your hopes up. I'm sure you will soon say something I can't abide.

That's not really a helpful argument, it's just name calling. In fact Rand's insight here seems spot on. Primitive man was seeking some explanation of the physical universe and, more importantly, a coherent way of dealing with it. Why not invent invisible Gods as explanations for natural occurrences like floods, lightning, fires, etc.?

Well said, ewv.

The first question posed in the thread is whether or not the United States is a Christian nation. I think we generally agree this to be a fallacious assertion solely based on the contents of the First Amendment.

The second question is whether or not the Founders were influenced by a belief in the Judeo-Christian God. Since we can not ask them directly, we can only look a their published writings, and the predominance of those suggest that the majority interpretation of God was profoundly Judeo-Christian in nature. Some like George Washington leave no ambiguity whatsoever, as his use of the word God in speeches such as his inauguration addresses is plain and clear in denoting his understanding and faith in a Judeo-Christian God. Others such as Jefferson are less clear because some writings seem to support, but others oppose. John Adams grew up as a Puritan, but while he later dropped his affiliation with that sect, his writings make it clear he still believed in a Judeo-Christian God. We can go on through the list of Founders if we wish.

Does that mean that the United States was created only to govern a Christian nation? I can not agree with that assumption because if that were the case, I would expect the First Amendment to be exactly the reverse of its present writing.

If the real point of the question is to identify the source of inspiration of these men, I would suggest that simply trial and error, as well as long deliberation by informed men played the larger part. Simply reading through the Constitutional Convention debates makes it very clear to me that these men were highly educated in the histories of both past and present governments and could easily point out flaws in any or all of them. They were as quick to point out the flaws in Switzerland or England as that of Carthage or Rome or Athens. And they had one failed experiment - the Articles of Confederation - under their belt to learn from.

I care much less about the origins of the Constitution than the preservation of such and the resulting freedoms.

I actually agree with you (damn! twice in one week!) as I met a few of them back in the late 60's; they were as impervious to logic as religionists. None of the Objectivists I have met since about 1980 would qualify as "fanatics." I've never operated under the illusion that AR was infallible, particularly in her personal life, however, her analysis of reality and Man's place in it is spot-on and her philosophy is the best, most logical way to live that I have discovered. You might be more comfortable communing on a different site.