She did say in many ways under government such things as 'a government holds a legal monopoly on the physical use of force.' Then in many ways concludes most if not all of those comments 'under an objective code of rules' and then goes on...

A government which uses that monopoly against it's citizens or refuses to protect them 'switches roles to that of a criminal.'

Which leads one to the reason for two other conditions The Second Amendment and the oath of office of the Military.

Assuming an ability (State Militia formations, free and uncontrolled voting rights, to protect citizens against a criminal government.) to implement.

And also by switching roles they signal 'the biggest gang on the block is in control.'

There is no right to license at the Federal Level. That is a State function if allowed by the people of that state. The crack in that wall was the Gun Control act which excluded certain weapons and that occurred with the advent of a socialist government 1913 to present.

Same applies to much else.

But with a government that uses the economic version of a cycle (or circle) of repression and refuses to honor it's legal functions and worse moves to ensure citizens cannot honor their legal functions such a government is no longer valid...

How it's replaced is another discussion. No way I can see through the present political system EXCEPT at that bottom and ONLY by not supporting the left which means Democrats and no Republicans.

The other choice is learn how to click your heels when the students become the next SS/KGB as they have done before.

(Of course the first place they 'controlled' were the ranks of college professors so if history repeats their is a certain justice...)

But reaction to the inititiation does not require waiting for the force to have made contact. Initiation is the requirement not completion. Christianity says turn the other cheek but does not say - twice.

The two are separate.

Faith demands no reason nor any evidence. Therefore it has to be preached and cannot be taught except by repetition of meaningless syllabics all of which can be defined as 'obey' obey obey obey obey obey or in our languages Obeyme.

Evidence comes from the senses sight, hearing, touch, taste That rock is heavy, this rock is heavy every rock I pick up has weight. Gradually, if faith enters into it at all one reasons the probability of all rocks having some degree of weight it's a faith in your own inate ability to reason which evolves into I think therefore I am.

Those who are into the faith side of the house to the exclusion say the real world is unknown all that i see, touch, hear, taste, smell is but a facade and I shall never know the real world the spiritual world which is forever hidden from me. That is reserved for a special few 'interpreters' who bid me have faith in my interpretation. I am special you are common.

Followers of Plato are in two classes. Those that obey and turn their backs on their ability to think and reason and those that prey upon them and use them. The inheritors of the special exempt class who invariably end up with a totalitarian conclusion.

Of course the witch doctor approach as codified into some sort of semi, semi, semi science by the Plato lineage lists Philosophers of his line of thinking as the special exempt class and fighting amongst themselves Republicans vs. Democrats are a fine example.

Think of the Star Wars state. "Luke, trust your feelings was that exclusive of the first five?" to a follower of Plato and his line yes. To a follower of Aristotle no and the sixth sense is reason the ability to think.

Platoists deal with the answer of the moment, if it feels good do it. That sides contracts AIDs and celebrates the passing of the millenium a year early and thorugh its lineage accepts the will of the stern leader or father figure ESPECIALLY the followers of secular progressivism who while told they are in a nuturant non thinking womb are really nothing better than good little goose steppers with der Fuhrer Yoda as their Pied Piper.

Even to the point of recognizing and redefining name, and characteristics of their arch enemies as something they are not and refusing to accept as valid any of the in between viewpoints. instead viewing them as potential cannon fodder and baby factories (bi-conceptuals) is their frame, form, universal this time around.

As to religion all of them have one thing in common perhaps two or three. They recognize without evidence (except one) facts in evidence to prove their belief. And I will give you this religion in one of it's many forms is important to those who have no 'faith' in themselves and have consigned themselves to a lifetime of being afraid of the dark. It comforts them in moments of stress (emotional or an overloading of the five senses for they have not prepared themselves to handle reality.)

They all have a Father Figure sometimes cast as a female as leader-in-charge who is infallible. Some with Napoleonic complexes delude themselves into that role. For some it' s Comrade Soros or Comrade Lakoff who wear a false mantle as a Mommy but brook no deviation from their dogma just like the Daddy figure they warn against. No problem really as long as they are the Daddy even dressed like a Mommy.

They all have their concept of good and bad or acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Too include considering themselves independent of or part of a greater mass and surrendering or not surrendering their ability and their will to think and reason.

The sole exception is found primarily in the hard sciences in any abundance who using the six senses and developing extensions of them have determined the current size, shape and make up of what we call the Universe, Direction of expansion and deduced from that point of origin and stated a hypothesis some probable answers - except to the three universal unknowns What started it (source of power to create), Will it stop expanding and then what? (when it runs of energy if at all.)

I look it at a bit more simply in a works for me attitude. If the source of power, the void, God or Gods in whatever form or any other description want me to know they or it will invent or cause to exist someone who comes up with the answer. In the meantime using my abilities.

I've found out there is no need to be afraid of the dark. I need no amulet nor special dispensation from some poseur who seeks only to control my mind I reject though will test the simplistic solution of the moment and reject those that have proved faulty countless times and continue to examine facts on the ground as an individual thinker who perpetuates the work of others. Without having to think about it i just turn on a light or let my eyes adjust using dark adaptation.

Except of course those who whose senses are buried in the ground while they pollute with their gasses the ozone layer. They invariably cower in fear or ruin others night vision by turning on too much light.

Conclusion the argument is circular only if you are stuck in a rut and forgot or never learned the purpose of the steering wheel.

The problem you will have is you have to provide valid, Objectivist means of reasoning to God existing, without using divine revelation. Objectivists limit reason to the point of inefficacy to determine anything outside of an atheistic mindset.

Well, don't get too melodramatic. Reason has it's place, but I am not in favor of denial of faith in reason which Objectivists clearly hold to.

Well, since reason isn't allowed to reason to an external source of revelation by a divine being, yeah, this is what you get. Unfortunately, if one were to say they reasoned to such a divine being, they are chastised as irrational and an incompetent reasoner and is ill-equipped to understand the "divinity" of Ms. Rand's ideals.

To you, that is the point, but one's happiness is another's unhappiness true? When no external source of revelation is allowed, it is simply dog-eat-dog and the dog remaining is happy and alive.

Is this the social order you are advocating?

Ok then where does the conscious mind come from? If you say it evolved, then reason is just another term for identifying how the chemicals in our brains yield particular thoughts and actions and nothing less, leaving out any basis for existence whatsoever.

Is that the hand you are willing to play?

I understand about Plato and Aristotle and the universals vs the particulars. The problem is that they are trying to tie the physical with the metaphysical and have no consistent system to do it because they exclude anything they cannot reason to.

Man by his reason alone cannot get to why he is here in the first place, but you have to deal with that. Existence exists is a copout, I'm afraid because origins has a bearing on everything. If start off with just our ability to reason without knowing how we have the ability to do so in the first place, then there is nothing to keep reason from being surmounted by another means of perception in the future because you cannot know it will not be.

I am really struggling to understand why you cannot see that you have to have faith in your assumption that reason is man's highest means for determining reality. There are things you will never be able to know simply through reason because they have to first be revealed to you where you then use other means of perception to gain knowledge. Reason can only be pure in your world if you are wiling to accept any conclusions derived from it, which I would venture to say you are not. Are you willing to accept me reasoning that reason is not man's highest means of determining reality? If not, then you have faulty logic within this entire discussion. On the other hand, if I have faith that I can obtain knowledge of reality through other means of perception over reason, then reason doesn't become a limiting factor for my ability to gain knowledge.

"Language misused.....can be either mistaken or dishonest."

This concept of dishonesty is interesting within an Objectivist discussion. How can one be dishonest in Objectivism if one can reason to any end and it be valid for the reasoner?

I guess this whole idea of rationality, the way I am seeing you use it, implies some objectivity, but objectivity is impossible for man without an external source directing his thinking to avoid his subjectivity. Even if man follows a law, that law can be subjective with the end to skew the results in his or a group's favor.

I am using the meaning that faith is a means of perception providing assurance of that which is unseen, unheard, but not unreasoned.

Thank you.

"Reason requires evidence"

Evidence of what? If you need evidence to know reason works, then that is a circular argument to legitimize reason correct?

I am simply saying that if you place reason as man's ultimate means for determining reality, then you are taking that on faith, else you are saying I reason to reason and that is no argument for reason at all to have this place in the world of perception.

Ok, boiling this down, let me see if I get your gist. So, you are saying that I can know nothing without reasoning to it correct? If that is the case, whatever I reason to is valid correct, even if no one else reasons to it?

"A proper moral code is based on reason."

So can I reason to murder all people and it be proper? What about reasoning to that would make it improper?

Additionally, I am not saying you rationalize faith to get to reason....you have to have faith in reason to see it as man's ultimate/highest means of determining reality.

So how are the Ten Commandments subjective?

Section 9 Article 2 of the Constitution

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require.

That particular portion would require an amendment. (OR an Obamative)