No, I can't describe that world. It will be what we make of it. I doubt that anyone in the days of Kings could describe what capitalism would be like. I do know that natural rights should apply to everyone equally and it is immoral for one person or group to be given exemption and allowed to decide what morality ("laws") is. I just don't see any possible way that anarchy could be worse than having a ruling class forcefully take protection money from us and use it to tell us what we can and can't do and what permission slips we have to buy to do what or work at what job. That is still central planning.
For more information read books, quotes, videos, by Lysander Spooner, Larken Rose, Adam Kokesh, Murry Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, etc.

Hmm, anarchy. Could you describe that world to me? What I see in my mind would not be a positive result. Have you posed this in the Gulch?

Hello BenFrank,
Glad you are here. I am pretty well versed, having read almost everything Rand over the years, but I am always learning more. I also do not posses a photographic memory, so I am always re-learning. It is my pleasure to share what I have retained. As far as I am concerned, all that is required is an inquiring, open mind and common courtesy.
Welcome to the Gulch and don't be discouraged.
Good blog. You have received many good comments.
Respectfully,
O.A.

I have been a follower of Objectivism for many years. I agree with just about all of AR's thinking, but in the last year or two I have come to believe that a minimalist government is neither necessary nor even possible. The initiation of force is immoral. Because of this I now call myself an anarchist rather than an objectivist. I just wonder if other objectivist followers also think this way or if there has been any serious discussion on it within objectivist forums?

Sorry about the italics in my post. I had meant to only get the word both.

"Identifying that which exists is our only "solid point of reference"."

I agree, but all identification is only as good as 1) our tools and 2) our application of such. If we are not willing to examine the proper application of either of these, what we are actually claiming is that both our tooling and our application of such are infallible. I don't know about you, but I'm unwilling to make that claim.

The game I want to avoid playing is the game of assumptions arising from inherent bias. This is where one must question one's self and admit where bias may come into play, and that it may come into play either ignorantly due to a lack of knowledge (i.e. imperfect measurements or imperfect inferences) or also as a result of the willful choice. Of particular concern are these second instances.

I am not advocating that any discussion start with the definition that 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2. What I am advocating for is that when any particular assumption is challenged by an alternate point of view, that the scientist will go back and walk through their assumptions until the point of divergence is identified and attempt to see if the divergence is justified without assuming that the original inference was correct.

Identifying that which exists is our only "solid point of reference". You're walking on epistemological 'dead man's legs'. The logical extension of your comment is that all your knowledge is a floating abstraction— including your assertion of a lack of "perfect knowledge". In that context, "two willing minds" are playing a game that I don't want to play.

Until we have a perfect knowledge of everything, our "identification" of reality is going to subject to the imperfections caused by a combination of our limited abilities of perception and cognition. We all wear this imperfect understanding as rose-colored glasses to some degree or another. When we acknowledge our own ignorance, it encourages us to always clarify whether or not we are starting from a solid point of reference or whether we are starting from a point of our own bias.

Are there points of agreement upon which any debate may begin? Absolutely. And we should take advantage of these opportunities for mutual agreement. But if a question of logic arises, one must be willing to drive down the chain of logic and reason to define the point at which a divergence of opinion arises and acknowledge it. No reconciliation of opposing viewpoints can or should be expected until such happens. And again, this requires both to review their respective premises. That two people have come to opposing conclusions on any matter is the result of incomplete understanding. It takes _two willing minds more interested in the truth than ideology, however, to pursue the matter.

I'm not going to sentence myself to eternally 'begging the question'. Once I identify "plain, old reality", there's no need to wipe the slate clean with every irrational 'challenge' that comes along. That's not the scientific method; it's a path to insanity.

Zeus' Electrified Nads! What does "without all the trappings imposed by our viewpoints and rose-colored glasses" mean?

I think it is fine for Christians to be here. It might take a long time to understand acknowledge the contradiction.

The people who tell others they don't belong need to check their premises.

The point of Objectivism is to identify Reality - plain, old reality - without all the trappings imposed by our viewpoints and rose-colored glasses.

The real Objectivist is one who is willing to revisit ANY concept or premise without hesitation. Such is the scientific method. And if there is a lack of proof for a particular viewpoint, the Objectivist will acknowledge such, but then refuse to be content.

The key to knowledge is to like Einstein acknowledge how much still there is to know and not to presume that anything is an open and shut case.

Yes, my father is still doing pretty well for an Alzheimer's patient.

I have felt some of that with objectivists who are very careful
to be precise in their thinking. . it kinda comes with the territory
when you're in a crowd of strangers, I believe. . Thanks Much
for the explanation!!! -- j
.

I thought of that when a 30 yr old healthy freeloader asked me for money in front of a circle k convenience store. I just got tired of them telling me "God bless you" as the final one in a string of guilt producing manipulations. Asking them for money seems to end the interaction with their mouths hanging open and nothing to say

She came off as being automatically judgmental. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt when I first meet them. However, I should have added that after the lecture, which I found mesmerizing, in a more casual setting she was much more relaxed and pleasant, surrounded as she was by friends and admirers.

This is FUNNY! Term I thought you were a millionial. GHBs laughing!

I can 't believe how many of you
who are my father 's age, I have gone my whole life not knowing until this site.

Good! . we have a fun bunch of geniuses, artists, submariners,
equestriennes and cowboys here -- and they will all contribute
to your growth. . I spent 23 years in school and still learn something
every time I visit here. . Enjoy, Ben!!! -- john
.

I will definitely stick around. This is the first place I have been in ages where I feel my brain cells are regenerating rather than shriveling up from lack of use. I will actually have to put my brain in gear before opening my mouth! :-)

It's not a phew Ben, if you have a reasoned and rational discussion you'd like to present, please do so.

I am old now. I just ask the bums to give ME money because I am old and not so healthy and they typically are younger and healthier. They leave me alone after that. Why shouldn't I get free money too that THEY have to work for?

Same :)

Herb, could you clarify the "really didn't like her" comment
a little? . did she seem unfriendly or what? -- j
.

holy smokes! . you're right, again! . BenFrank has only been here
a month, and the interchanges lately have been sparky........
in places.

Ben! . You Belong Here! . Your Contributions Are Appreciated Here!
Please Stick Around, OK??? -- john
.

Good for you. We'll take it one Liberal at a time. At least you had some success.