rule: An *authoritative*, prescribed direction for conduct…

principle: “…a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend. … It is only by means of principles that one can … evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. … ” (Rand; CUI)

Epistemologically, it’s the inability of such people as Nebton to think in principles that both prevents him from accurately recalling precisely what Miss Rand wrote and, thus, leads him (and others) to make such sweeping (and erronesous) claims about her philosophy.

Regards,
SB
“The mind never fully accepts any
convictions that it does not owe to
its own efforts.”– Frederic Bastiat

This quote is very true of Rands minarchist views…..and has been mine for many years. But lately I have been wondering how a third person (government) can make the decision of what is rational. Every government in history thought they were rational. All governments, even a small government , has to threaten violence & initiate force to have their laws obeyed. Who is the government to tell me I have to pay for police & military, if I say I don’t need them?

quote ““In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.” quote

“Demonstrably” by who……..to who? What if I disagree…but live a non-violent life. What if I “would (& should}’ NOT be willing to pay? Who is going to be initiating violence now when the legal system (& eventually armed police) come to punish me for not paying the government demands upon my freedom? We loose our moral standing when we condemn big government but think that small government should have the same oppressive powers.

And how could a corporation pull any strings when economics are completely separated from the government?
It is when the government has the power to favor one corporation over another that ‘’string pulling”’ enters the picture.

But seriously, I do appreciate much of her philosophy, even though I find it incomplete. There are aspects of it that are derivative, but she also brought a freshness to some of the ideas, which is one reason she has garnered such a following. I also enjoyed the two novels of hers I’ve read (no, I never claimed to be an expert on her).

For additional arguments about her theories and whether or not they have derivative tendencies, see this cross-posting of my blog entry at dagblog.com, where the crowd is a little smaller, so the arguments tend to be a bit more sophisticated (although, like any group, they have their silly moments as well):
http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/randthrasymachus-marx-and-dostoyevsky-616

In short, you’re right to say that I’m misrepresenting her theoretical arguments, and part of that is because it’s been a while since I’ve read her works, and my memory was influenced both my extrapolation of her arguments and discussions I’ve had with other Objectivists, and that’s not fair to her. How do I extract anarchy from a woman who eschews it? Here’s a quote from her that I think helps explain it:
“In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.”
If funding the government is completely voluntary, then ultimately compliance with laws will be voluntary, as well (at least by those with money). That either results in plutocracy or anarchy, but not freedom. Assumptions that very rich people (or corporations) will not use their control of the purse strings to manipulate law enforcement is one of those assumptions about human behaviors I think is flawed.

I’m not exactly “on the left”, either. Possibly like you, I consider myself to be a “radical moderate”, meaning that I subscribe to no party’s doctrine. I agree with Rand’s (and Aristotle’s) philosophy of using rational thought to arrive at one’s own conclusions.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/nebton/2009/04/randthrasymachus-marx-and-dost.php#comment-3445886

Do you also have commentary on the commentary given to the article you wrote this about?