I will discount the soundness of such belief or reasoning since history proves different. As to responsibility, I reject that except in a case where I can satisfy to myself that it's in my self-interest to do so. I also don't excuse them their belief, I define them as evil to all human life.

Ahh, but I can fault them because history, time and time again has adequately demonstrated the results of such faulty reasoning and illogical analysis. What's the old definition of insanity -- 'Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result this time?' It has nothing whatsoever to do with favoring my choices or reasoning above someone else's.

While you make a conclusion about the aggressive use of force being the rule, the exception of America is noteworthy. It is no coincidence that the country that embodied AR values the best is both exception and superpower. It is also noteworthy that, when America allowed a thug (spoken in Mark Levin rant - There I said it!) like the current oppressor-in-chief to become its leader, America ceased following AR values and ceased to be exceptional.

Robbie, from you comments, it appears that you've never read Shrugged. AR definitely accounted for what you describe as human nature of fear, self doubt, looting, and mooching and living for the short term only - and she went further and portrayed a fairly accurate prediction of what happens to individuals and society when lived in that manner. Collapse, failure, poverty, blood, and death - and men of the mind realizing that they couldn't exist within such a system and therefor their rational self-interest was best served by abandoning such attempts.

You argue that we must accept those failures of the non-objectivist men and AR argued that no, there was indeed a different and better way to look at men's natures and lives. That a life lived understanding the philosophy of Objectivism, regardless of the level of production and contribution as long as it was accounted for within the individual's needs and capabilities and also understanding and respecting that others had the same rights was the only proper moral and ethical way to live. She also argued that men had the inherent right to act in self defense against moochers and looters and as well, that it was right to allow such to find and live with their ultimate failures.

Whether you believe that a life lived respecting the rational and logically reasoned men of the mind is worse than trying to live within a society of failure, oppression, slavery, and worship of death, AR argued exactly the opposite. Where you argue that we must accept force and the abuse of power and find some way to live within that system, AR argued simply, that there was a better way and went further to layout a philosophy of life that would work - had in fact worked to a large extent in the first century and some years of this country founded on many aspects of such a philosophy.

It seems, that since AR didn't lay out a complete action plan for the advocates of the philosophy to utilize for the rest of society and against the evils of that society, that you find fault with it. Objectivism is a philosophy of life for the individual and a free market, not a plan for revolution, war, or a political campaign.

There are different translations and interpretations of the New Testament. Do you recall any more details about the parable against private property, to clarify which one?

One that I think demonstrates Jesus' views on personal property and altruism is the story about a follower who applied expensive perfume on Jesus. One or more of the disciples said it would be better if the oil was sold, and the money used for the poor. Jesus said no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing_o...

If you click through to read the linked articles http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/... , you'll see Rand believed Christianity contained a contradiction: that while it recognized the value of the individual, it simultaneously called for altruism. But she did clearly state that Jesus preceded her in acknowledging the worth of the individual.

What Robbie is basically arguing is the same as Rush Limbaugh. Those who rise to power do so by the aggressive use of force. And I think Robbie believes it inevitable that someone will come to claim that power. He makes an argument that is difficult to refute. It explains why America is (was?) considered exceptional and why Ben Franklin made his famous statement, "I have given you a republic ... if you can keep it."

Ok, and those people are not Objectivist. AR (and myself as well) argued that were those people to use their mind in a logical and rational way, that they would arrive at the conclusion to act in their own self defense.

The oppressors throughout history have counted on exactly what you're describing and it has always led to the same result-loss of liberty, loss of pride in self, blood, and death. A sane and rational mind will have studied the history of mankind and learned from that-as Franklyn said (paraphrased) Those that give up a little of their rights (or freedoms) for more safety deserve neither.

The Bible quotes Jesus speaking of a parable that does recognize the necessity of personal property ownership. That is a huge part of Individualism and a no-no to collectivists.

Actually, Ayn Rand wrote that Christ was one of the first figures in human history to advocate the value of the individual. http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/...

Point taken. What I am interested in understanding is more precisely what you mean by "rationality" (as in "It is rationality of a different sort." I think people have different perceptions as to its meaning. Hence the comments about: "the long view vs the short view" and "what improves productivity the most". All of this seems to me to stem from different views as to what is rational.

I see the examples you offered; but you also implied that Objectivism is "a philosophy that doesn't account for fundamental nature of people...." So, I'm asking you for an example of where you think Objectivism fails in this regard.

"train scene" - Translated biblically, "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

Maybe I have missed your point. So, could you point out an example, of what you're trying to say, in Objectivist philosophy?

I was hoping that you would point me to the "contradiction". It is easier to test a supposed contradiction" than it it is to prove or disprove ewv's assertion "QM doesn't contradict the law of identity." I think ewv is correct because to violate the law of identity is to undermine the very logic we use to discover what is and is not.