Thomas L. Knapp said: “I certainly don't disagree with the course of action that you state you'd take. Hell, I'm somewhat in that same boat already.”
Outstanding Tom. FINALLY, someone who both reads Rand and APPLIES what he’s learned (rather than most on this forum who seem to just want to talk and split hairs over $3 words). I can’t tell you what a breath of fresh air that is for me. I’ve been looking everywhere for individuals who have read Rand and take action. I came to this forum thinking that I’d find them here. Instead, I’ve found a fair amount of useless discussion, socialism, and limited to no action. (Where’s the forum of individuals who’ve read Rand and take real action to apply what they’ve learned?)
Thomas L. Knapp said: “On the other hand, Rand drew a distinction between reluctantly acquiescing, especially under direct coercion, to something one opposes and actually sanctioning that thing.”
Absolutely she did. You don’t have to look any further than Atlas Shrugged. John Galt’s capture was a perfect portrayal of that. If you put a gun to my head, I will likely DO as you say; however, putting a gun to my head will not force me to think what you want. But that’s not what I’m reading (for the most part) on this topic. I’m reading that “some,” because they don’t have enough self-esteem to stand up to these terrorist goons, fraudulently attempt to protect their limited self-esteems by rationalizing direct theft… or pretending that they are individuals who take action, only to be discouraged when the opinions of OTHERS don’t agree. I don’t know how else to look at that but sanctioning it. One guy in this thread claimed he went to my Web site and did the “research” I’d suggested, and then claimed I was battling windmills. From reading your article, you know the research that it takes to learn what we’ve learned (if I remember correctly, it took me about 6 months to validate everything).
Thomas L. Knapp said: “This being an Objectivist forum, I can hardly find fault with members of it for taking a position that seems to be at least arguably in line with Objectivist ideas when it comes to "acquiescence" versus "sanction.”
Gosh darn it – say it ain’t so. Please tell me that the relatively few people who post on this forum do not represent “Objectivist ideas.” Please tell me that this isn’t what people believe The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged propound. Please tell me that the socialistic jokers and “individualists” who care what others think aren’t truly representative of Rand’s ideals.
Then again, I’m not one who ever fakes reality. If this is it, then Rand was wrong about one very important theory: we live in a malevolent world. I’m not yet convinced.
- B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.loveisearned.com
Instant Messenger:
AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Edited by Brian Lovett on 5/29, 7:56pm)
| 
I am in favor of federally funded stem-cell research for the same reason that I
am in favor of teaching evolution in public schools. Ideally, the US government
would fund neither medical research nor education--but given that it does so,
its actions must be ruled by reason, not by an effort to promote or enforce the
superstitious restrictions of any particular strain of religious mysticism.... As a symbolic issue, to spend billions on medical research while
exempting this one area sends the same message the president will send if he
uses his first and only veto to block this bill: that enforcing religious
restrictions is the government's highest priority.
