BookTalk.org

Interbane wrote:
If you refuse to violate one man's rights, he's going to turn around and use his extra freedom to violate the rights of his neighbors. Objectivism is a fantasy.

So you are still supportive of violating rights. Of which I am not. Neither is Rand. Its against her morality and her laissez-faire capitalism to violate individual rights. Anytime the government interferes with the economy itself, like regulating it, someones rights are violated whenever it does. So when a person is for regulating the economy in some way, they are also for the violation of someones rights in some way. To regulate it, is to violate rights.

So...

We will remain in disagreement then.

BTW, have you read Atlas Shrugged?

Interbane wrote: Which part is contradictory? Which part is distorted?

If you are unable to see, I'll show you why:

The speaker in Atlas Shrugged said,

"I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."

Ok. In laissez-faire capitalism, we have a free market economy, with limited governemtn. The governemtn is there to uphold and protect rights and no man may initiate the use of force against another. So to say that in a free economy men must be forced to compete, is contradictory, as the government would not force men to compete in a free economy. You can't control men in order to force them to be free, as the speaker claims. What you do is leave men alone in order for them to be free. And this is essentially what laissez-faire capitalism does. It leaves you alone to be free to compete, or free not to compete, and as long as you are not violating anyones rights, you can continue to enjoy that freedom in the marketplace.

Here's an explanation.

Let's say you violate the rights of person A. He will not turn around and be more free. That's contradictory, as you mention. I agree. But that's not what I'm saying.

It's well known that the free market allows person A to violate the right of person B in a legal fashion(duress or informational asymmetry). If the violation of person B by person A is greater than the "violation" of stopping person A, then the total sum of 'freedom' has increased. That is not contradictory, and is the way the world works. By restricting the rights of some people, you benefit the rights of many other people. The benefit of the many is greater than the loss of the few. Examples... REAL examples as opposed to dialogue from a fiction novel... real examples are everywhere. Stop trying to apply a fiction novel to the real world.

Interbane wrote:It's well known that the free market allows person A to violate the right of person B in a legal fashion

The free market in laissez-faire capitalism does not allow rights to be violated by government, through law, or by other people. It bans it, makes it illegal to do. If and when they are violated, there is the justice system in place.

We will remain in disagreement then. You are still in favor of violating rights. Period.

Rand is absolutely opposed to it, as am I. She is in full support of individual rights and the political economic social system that recognizes, upholds, and protects those rights. Those rights do not come from God, or society, they come from man's nature. Her morality is the proper moral and philosophic defense for individual rights and for laissez-faire capitalism itself.

Her writing on "The Nature of Government":
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... government

Her speaking about Objective Law:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... reg_ar_law

Objective Law:
http://principlesofafreesociety.com/objective-laws/



Again I ask you, have you read Atlas Shrugged?