"Ayn Rand defines a human being as an living organism with a 'volitional conceptual consciousness' which is certainly true of all the seven billion human beings walking the earth once they are born."
How about retarded people? Or infants? In any case, Ayn Rand isn't God. How does her definition matter.
"She considers a fertilized ovum or a human embryo or human fetus as a "potential" human being not an actual human being until it is born. In her response to the Pope's encyclical entitled "Humanae Vitae" she declared that a woman's whim was sufficient justification for the termination of her pregnancy."
Again, Rand or the Pope; neither is all-knowing.
"There is a distinction between a potential human being and an actual human being by her definition but most thinking people make the distinction of 'viability outside the womb.' The vast majority of abortions are done long before that anyway."
I do not doubt that in the future, we will have the technology to grow a fetus from day zero. So does that make "viability" outside the womb irrelevant? Again, you are using her definition, without detailing why Rand's definition is so important.
"The mere possession of DNA or dividing cells is nonsense when one is talking about the will of the pregnant woman who is the victim of rape or incest."
It may seem silly, it may seem like nonsense to you, but why is it nonsense?
"Those who declare that irrelevant are heartless and cruel to force a rape victim or incest victim to remain pregnant against her will in such cases."
Look, one could easily say that Rand was heartless for her belief that the will of the mother was all that mattered...a view that would cruelly permit the abortion of what many see as babies.
"Those of us opposed to government intervention in the marketplace should support the right of a pregnant woman to make such decisions for herself and get off ones high horse to be dictating self righteously sounding like inquisitors from the Dark Ages."
Ron Paul and others have always maintained that government has a role in the market. Preventing fraud, aggression, etc. Generally, it is only pure anarchists who believe that government has no role in the aforementioned areas. Many see abortion as an act of aggression.
"We are supposed to be about the rights of the individual and for individual freedom and Ron Paul sounds like an unthinking religious fanatic on this one conceding reason to the Democrats on this issue who advocate properly for a woman's right to choose."
But some people DISAGREE with your intepretation of an individual. They believe that a fetus has freedoms.
To be fair to Ron Paul, he has always defended his pro-life positions in a non-religious way.
"You people don't seem to get it that there is no supernatural realm, no life after death, no meeting your dead relatives after you die to spend eternity with in some afterlife. You are like children who believe in a fairy tale. Grow up."
I would applaud. Religion can be a frustrating thing.
But you seem to support this notion that if we get government out of all facets of life, we'll have a super utopia where everyone respects the rights of everyone else without compulsion, there is no poverty, and everyone takes care of each other because they are so good and nice and kind inside.
"If you want a philosophy for living on earth read Ayn Rand's fiction and non fiction. She is an advocate of reason all the way and her moral standard is Man's Life on Earth. She holds that human beings are not sacrificial animals but have a right to their own lives here in the real world."
My primary issue with Rand is that she bases her philosophy on ideals that themselves are not based on anything. Her fundamental logical building blocks are all arbitrary. She says things like "natural rights"....without ever really saying why those rights are objectively rights.
"Read George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God, Christopher Hitchen's God Is Not Great, Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion and Sam Harris' The End Of Faith."
"But in order to educate the youth we have to have rational arguments which means to learn in detail an entire economic theory of how the free market operates based in part on the concept of the rights of man."
You call for rational beliefs...but what the foundation of those beliefs is is itself faith. Someone may simply choose not to believe in facts (presumably the basis for your concept of rational beliefs), and you will never get agreement with him.
"That means studying the works of Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt and Murray Rothbard."
von Mises and Rothbard were both praxeologists, a faily anti-scientific position in my view. Their views are interesting, but I do consider them flawed, since I do believe that human behaviour/economics can be understood with experimentation.
Of course people have benefitted by those programs because when some of us are sacrificed, meaning taxed, others will be the recipients of that taxation."
I've always maintained that even in 1796, all forms of government taxed at 18% of GDP. We're at 24% today (the numbers shift depending on the methodology used), and our government constitutionally has to spend more as a % of GDP than it had to back then.
"Oddly enough it is the Christian ethic of Altruism which justifies their practicing human sacrifice. It is the idea that one should be willing to hold other's Needs above one's own which grants a moral sanction to the Democrats policies. Isn't it true that we are taught from childhood that we should hold the needs of others above our own. That the essence of being good is the willingness to hold the interests of others above our own."
You have a point. But I've always felt that so many libertarians like libertarian not as a philosophy, but as a means to an end. That "end" being that they get to keep all the money they make, and not share it with anyone. This whole culture of "me, me me", the idea that successfull people have no one but themselves to thank for their success...that IMO is what is fueling a lot of the passion behind libertarianism.
I personally like libertarianism because it addresses the role of the government FORCING individuals to pay tax dollars to take care of others and pay for non-essential services. But I think that individuals have an INDIVIDUAL moral responsibility to take care of the less fortunate, and Christianity is no doubt amenable to that.
Read The Objectivist Ethics in Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness.
The Ends do not justify the Means. We are opposed to the involuntary means the Democrats are willing to support in order to help others. Coercive charity is not good it is tyranny.
And see Atlas Shrugged part two on October 12, 2012. Better still read the book first.
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not