From the moment you made those ridiculous claims about intelligence it was clear you were not up to this dicussion.

It's good you have finally decided to withdraw, not without spouting the predictable dosage of ad hominem, of course.

I am glad to see I have finally reduced you to thrashing around in fear. Yup, my way of life is totally incompatible with yours. Yup, there are more of you, so you'll win. It's too bad you still have delusions of grandeur thinking that you are somehow morally superior because of that. I'll never be able to get through your thick skull, since you just ignore everything I say anyway to cling to your worldview regardless of reason, so there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion. Go to hell. Don't bother replying. We are done.

"production is the measure of worth"

says who? the producers? the consumers? the hierarchy? the government? the market? when you are born into this life, does anyone own you? is a human life a commodity to be bartered and traded at some fluctuating degree of value? production is entirely worthless, in real terms. production in and of itself is a meaningless activity that any mindless programmed robot is capable of. in fact, "productivity" as measured in economics has greatly improved since the automation of production in the past century. by such nonsensical logic, that would make the machines that assemble cars and widgits the most valuable, revered parts of society. if production is the measure of intelligence, robots and machines are gods compared to humans.

so much for self-determinism, since we can never equal the value and freedom that must be granted to artifical life forms.

furthermore, production is a dead-end. here today gone tomorrow is the old cliche at work here. if all one lives for is to be a producer/consumer drone/ant in a little colony in the remote vastness of the universe, then go for it. don't be so shocked when others place more importance in their lives on intangibles, abstractions, and beliefs that they are free to choose from. if one is here only to conform to the marketplace, then human evolution will be at a standstill, as we become so self-satisfied in our materialist environment, we will overshoot our carrying capacity and consume every last resource in our never-ending desire to produce goods for consumption. this is the path of suicide, and we are already well on the way – using up fossil fuels, clean air, and polluting our surroundings to get more "productive capacity" out of what we do not truly own. no one owns anything. the moment you die, your rental period is over and no one cares about your possessions. materialism itself is more transient than even human life, as people are remembered more than how many research papers they wrote and how many bolts they screwed into metal beams.

without the electric-power grid being online, I would like to see anyone build a car. unless of course, you plan on monitoring and conducting maintenance on the grid. who will mine and collect the resources needed for this? gonna buy the parts at pep boys? or perhaps use existing parts from a junkyard (thereby using the efforts of others through no effort of your own?)
regardless, this silly talk of determining the worth of people via some arbitrary measure of accomplishment is anything but objective: it is completely subjective. intelligence, accomplishment, right, wrong, value, good, bad and all other judgmental epistemological arguments are 100% subjective, depending on the power structure declaring what is of value and what is not. if all one has to live for is bits of paper that one can trade for material junk, and some belief (and that is all that intellectual progress is, is a belief in human reason) then why bother with any rules. objectivists are too cowardly to be anarchists – they would rather control the values of a society according to their beliefs and their hierarchy, completely subjugating all other forms of belief and value, as though they knew what was best for everyone. there is no room for freedom, freewill, or non-conformity when all value is measured in discrete amounts that can be translated into material commodification. and this form of belief certainly cannot withstand violent revolution, replacing one materialist paradigm for another, in a vicious cycle of perpetual destruction – all for the arrogant belief of what is quantified value and what is not. what a "great" species we have become.

LOL!!

sorry, but the delusions of grandeur that you are suffering from are quite hilarious. if you really believe half of what you typed above, and are not just pulling everyone's proverbial leg with this, then all I can say is "yikes".

and you explicitly said you would "rebuild civilization" without anyone's help. well what if one woman survived but she lived on the other side of the planet? what if she didn't want to reproduce with you? would you force her? or would your god-like intellect and ability to construct locomotives all by yourself in a single year impress her into submission? please.

to say that intelligence is linked to accomplishment…hahahahahahahaha!! what is it like to dwell completely in the exterior world of shallow superficiality and artifice? I presume you are not a mathematician…in the exterior world, what do mathematicians "accomplish"? all of their wrk is in the abstract, relying on others (engineers, laborers) to put their thought into action. yet mathematicians are some of the most 'intelligent' people on earth. yet in material terms, they accomplish so little.

it is absurdly arrogant to declare that you alone can rebuild civilization without anyone's help. that is about as believeable as telling us that Jesus picked you to save us from ourselves. in fact, the only difference between the two statements is that you substitute yourself for Jesus.

objectivists and Christian fundamentalists have alot more in common that you realize.

> first of all, you will not rebuild civilization without a woman to reproduce with

I might not save the species, but I can be civilized. If a woman survives, I can do both.

> so much for the solitary individual triumphing over nature

We don't "triumph" over nature. We use nature and its resources for personal benefit. A better way to say it might be "cooperating with nature".

> it would take you the rest of your life to build one automobile

Bullshit. A few years tops. I wouldn't be building a Ford pickup; I would build a means of transportation. I'd start with a horse carriage (which I can build in a few weeks), move on to the steam engine (which might take a year depending on the quality of ore available), and perhaps to an internal combustion engine later (which is not likely due to a disproportionate amount of effort needed).

When you are rebuilding civilization, you are not required to duplicate it exactly. You would build the tools and machines to fit your situation. And yes, it might take me a lifetime to build a spaceship. It does not make it impossible. It is simply a question of time. Alone, I might not get to 1945 in technological level, but I will certainly reach 1906, and I'll be pretty damn comfortable. In fact, I'll live like a king compared to the way you live now, since all my work goes toward my personal satisfaction.

I'd like to repeat here: the level of technology that can be achieved by a single man is limited only by time and his ability. The value of having other people around is not their mere existence, but the time one can purchase from them. The more time a person can produce, the higher his value. A homeless man under the bridge produces nothing and is capable of nothing. A trillion of them will still be homeless, poor, miserable, and utterly worthless.

Only those who produce, through the application of their intelligence and skill, have value. Only they can build civilization. It takes only one to start, although it may take several generations to finish. One such man, if made immortal, would have no limit to his achievements. So take your stupid "man is helpless alone" arguments elsewhere.

> this ridiculous view of the world as an island
> that does not require other humans for survival is ridiculous.

If we are talking about simple survival, then there is absolutely no question that a man alone can survive. An intelligent man can reach the peak of stone age culture in a few weeks, and spend the rest of his life in relative comfort, almost without regard to where he starts (if you dump him in the middle of the Sahara desert, then of course he'll die. So will a million people together in like circumstances, once they finish eating each other.) A stupid man would die in the richest of environments, and if there were a million stupid men, they would die likewise.

> if you truly were the last person on earth, and you contracted the plague

If you had a million "homeless men under the bridge" with you, you'd contact the plague sooner and die just the same. It's not like any of them would have the knowledge or the ability to cure you. The plague can be almost entirely prevented by proper hygiene, which can be practiced even in the most primitive conditions. Even if you live in a cave, you can still stay clean and healthy. Especially if there are no other people around to infect you.

> who is the ultimate barometer of 'intelligence'?

Your accomplishments are the barometer of your intelligence. Drop a man in the middle of a forest a million miles from anything. Then visit him the next year. A stupid man would be dead. An intelligent man will be living comfortably in a small cabin, well fed and warm. The same test can be conducted in a modern society. The intelligent have decent jobs as university professors, successful businessmen, insurance agents, or whatever. The stupid ones are on welfare, or living under the bridge. It is, of course, a continuous scale, and many possibilities in between exist.

> to posit that a person must "earn" their place
> of value is to imply that there is someone
> handing out the reward for this lemming-like
> effort to conform to some abstract illusory
> notion of 'value' or 'status'

There is a reward. It is the ability to obtain the effort of others in exchange for your own. By doing this you buy time, so you can drive a Ford in your lifetime while concentrating on producing something else. And I mean it; producing something of value, not sitting around doing nothing.

> I wonder who exactly is in charge of this hierarchy,

Every person who produces something of value. It is indeed, the most democratic of arrangements.

> by what right they derive their power to assign value?

By the right of owning what they produce, and by the privilege of doing business with whoever they please. By selling you their goods, they assign value to you. Remember, value is relative; you may have value to one person, and none to another.

Now I'll turn the question back to you: by what right do altruists derive the power to assign unlimited value to every human being regardless of what those human beings are or what they do? Who is in charge here, to force this valuation upon everyone? It used to be the church, who could do so by decree. In religion, you never question; you just accept, so this was easy. Now, though, with the proliferation of atheists like me, your task is getting harder. I'd say "good luck to you", but I would be lying.

> this would never occur in a democracy, nor a republic of any worth.

I would agree. Because most people in the world would find themselves worthless and forced to actually *gasp* produce something valueable to earn their lives.

> sounds like a pretty good totalitarian state,
> where those who participate and play by the
> arbitrary rules get a pat on the back

You mean like the present society where you get a pat on the back (and nothing else) for practicing charity. The rules are completely arbitrary too. It's not like anyone ever gives a reason why people should have intrinsic value. Aside from appealing to "God", that is, in an ultimate "proof by intimidation".

> if approval is required as a condition of worth

Approval is not a condition of worth. Production is the condition of worth. Go reread the beginning, where I explain why a man doesn't need anybody to be comfortable. He does not require trade, but he benefits from it. Again, I must emphasize that he benefits from trade only with other producers. He benefits not from their existence, but from their production, which is made possible by their intelligence and skill.

> objectivists can never really say who decides what is meritorious and who is not

Every person who produces something decides who is meritorious and who is not by deciding to trade with them.

> by what authority

By the authority of ownership, which is the only authority in an objectivist society.

> and by what standards?

By the standards of the man who is applying them. Value is relative, and so is the standard of value, but to objectivists, the standard of value is usually production (which is made possible by intelligence, so intelligence is thus also a standard of value).

> under such a rigid, controlled framework,
> finding one's own way would be impossible, since
> there would be no 'rewards' for anyone but those
> who conform to the hierarchy's contrived notions
> of 'success' and 'failure'.

To "conform" you would simply need discard your irrational desire for unearned "rewards". If you want something, you are free to trade for it with something you produced yourself, or with money you received for being employed by someone to produce for him. It is, indeed, a "rigid" system, for you will never get something without paying for it. In other words, you won't be able to steal. Such pity for you.

> if all one is concerned with is gaining approval

You really need to get rid of these assumptions of yours. It is the altruists who are concerned with "approval" because under their system you can only survive if other people like you and are willing to give you stuff (for nothing, of course). Objectivists are instead concerned with maximizing the value of what they produce in order to be able to trade their best effort for the best effort of others.

To give an example: an altruist businessman is producing cooking pots. His product is not very good; the pots are made of cheap iron and rust through within a few months. However, he has plenty of business because he is well liked and his customers buy his pots because "he needs the money", or because of "loyalty", or because they just happen to like him. To maintain his business, this man would have to spend his time trying to suck up to his big clients so they don't dump him.

An objectivist businessman produces the best pots he can make. Made of stainless steel and with a teflon nonstick coating, they are the best thing on the market. He isn't concerned about making his customers like him or his company. In fact, he doesn't give a damn what other people think. He is only concerned about making the best pot; best by his own standard, not anyone else's. His customers buy his pots because these pots will last centuries. Can you guess which one of them has the incentive to produce better pots?

> materialistic facade of personal freedom quickly
> erodes into a mere echo of self-determination
> the same game plays out over and over again -
> becoming exactly that which one is rebelling against.

Translation, please?

> substituting materialism for spiritualism

That's right. Because "spiritualism" must die! It is what most hinders the progress of technology. It is what poisons people's minds with ideas like "man is worthless", "you can't really know anything", "have faith in God and you'll be saved, even if you do nothing else". I say: good riddance!

"I do not require assistance in order to survive. If all the people in the world were to vanish tomorrow, I would survive and live a good life. I could rebuild civilization; agriculture, architecture, automobiles, airplanes, spaceships, nuclear power plants, margarine, paper, plastics, and everything else, because I know how they all work. Can you do the same?"

this is quite an absurd statement, and top heavy with hyperbole. first of all, you will not rebuild civilization without a woman to reproduce with – so much for the solitary individual triumphing over nature. second, it would take you the rest of your life to build one automobile, much less an airplane or spaceship or nuclear power plant. the whole reason society has benefitted from technological progress is a result of accrual of labor. how many buildings would be built if it were up to the architect to construct what he had designed? how many pharmaceutical drugs would be produced if only chemists were in charge of production. try to physically acquire all the component materials that go into plastics, autos, spaceships, etc etc. this ridiculous view of the world as an island that does not require other humans for survival is ridiculous. if you truly were the last person on earth, and you contracted the plague – good luck.

" It would maximize benefits for those who are intelligent and eliminate benefits to those who are not to increase the intellectual capacity of the future generations"

and who is the ultimate barometer of 'intelligence'? you? scientists? artists? politicians? whoever has the biggest gun? this foolishness only substitues one form of hierarchal oppression for another.

"If you wish to be considered valueable, you must earn that status. "

to posit that a person must "earn" their place of value is to imply that there is someone handing out the reward for this lemming-like effort to conform to some abstract illusory notion of 'value' or 'status'…I wonder who exactly is in charge of this hierarchy, and by what right they derive their power to assign value? this would never occur in a democracy, nor a republic of any worth. sounds like a pretty good totalitarian state, where those who participate and play by the arbitrary rules get a pat on the back and some toys to play with. doesn't really have anything to do with actual freewill or freedom though. and if approval is required as a condition of worth, then society will be no better off than under medieval monarchy rule.

"You let those who deserve and desire to live live, and leave those who don't to fend for themseleves. I call this justice"

how generous. objectivists can never really say who decides what is meritorious and who is not, and by what authority, and by what standards? under such a rigid, controlled framework, finding one's own way would be impossible, since there would be no 'rewards' for anyone but those who conform to the hierarchy's contrived notions of 'success' and 'failure'. if all one is concerned with is gaining approval, rewards, and contributing to some illusory simulation of a 'society' toward technocratic ends, then the pseudo-philosophy of shallow artifice quickly dissolves into fascism of the most abhorrent, controlling kind. under the guise of libertarianism, the materialistic facade of personal freedom quickly erodes into a mere echo of self-determination. substituting materialism for spiritualism, the same game plays out over and over again – becoming exactly that which one is rebelling against.

> You offer contrived clauses/explanations to avoid
> reaching results that may be undesirable to link
> with your proposed system.

Yes, but I was not talking about the same results. I was only concerned to assure you that an objectivist society does not jeopardize personal safety. Just because people do not value you, they will not necessarily kill you. Nor would they necessarily avoid aiding you in an emergency situation. You, on the other hand, are concerned with the fate of other people, whom you consider to have an intrinsic value.

Remember, in an objectivist society, life of any kind has no intrinsic value. If you wish to be considered valueable, you must earn that status. Because such a society's primary goal is to maximize value, the efforts it will expend to preserve you are directly proportional to your value. It doesn't mean they'll kill you. It just means that you are on your own. I consider this a very good thing.

Now, about value. A society that strives for wealth and comfort, values anything that lets it reach those goals. Those goals are reached through better understanding of the world in order to make better use of it. This is achieved through science and engineering, so to maximize value the society must create conditions optimal for the pursuit of those goals.

The pursuit of science and engineering requires intelligence (ability), education (skill), leasure (time), and wealth (resources). Therefore, the society's primary goal is to maximize the number of individuals possessing all those things. Because it is in the interest of citizens to preserve their way of life, their value judgements will be largely determined by those criteria.

So what about stupid, uneducated, and poor people? It is obviously not to their advantage to live in such a society. They can remedy the problem through self-improvement, or they can just emigrate somewhere else. If you happen to be one of them, it is entirely understandable that you would be hostile toward objectivism.

A large population will not be advantageous to such a society because it reduces wealth and increases overcrowding, so it would necessarily adopt methods of population control to keep it as low as possible without hindering progress. You disagree with this because believe that human life is valuable for itself, for some unknown reason, and believe the purpose of society to be to support the largest number of people.

An objectivist's society's concern is with quality, not quantity. It would maximize benefits for those who are intelligent and eliminate benefits to those who are not to increase the intellectual capacity of the future generations. This does not mean killing all the stupid people. It just means not helping them live. There is a big difference here. It's a matter of principle. You let those who deserve and desire to live live, and leave those who don't to fend for themseleves. I call this justice.

And finally, what if society considered me worthless? That would not be a problem. I do not require assistance in order to survive. If all the people in the world were to vanish tomorrow, I would survive and live a good life. I could rebuild civilization; agriculture, architecture, automobiles, airplanes, spaceships, nuclear power plants, margarine, paper, plastics, and everything else, because I know how they all work. Can you do the same? From your comments, I doubt it. You seem to think that nobody can survive without society's help. I wonder why that is?

>I am not "evading" anything. You offer contrived clauses/explanations to avoid reaching results that may be undesirable to link with your proposed system. Call it X.

>Second, there is nothing wrong with a society that lets worthless people die.

Means nothing in so far as you cant establish what worthless is. And if you do, its probably some arbitrary criterion tantamount to postulation. Bottom line, that position is meaningless or unjustified/undefendable. >I am simply telling you that nearly all of those "good deeds" you mention are done for a personal benefit of some sort, rather than any concern for random people.

That may be what _you_ propose, but dont pretend to include everybody else in that manner of conduct.

>Third, the situations you are describing are extremely rare..

Totally irrelevant, its a matter of principle. >Also, remember that it is in our current society, where you claim to value human life so highly, .. I dont claim anything about current society. I merely point out certain consequences of your system.
The fact that you contest those consequences rather than accept them outright seems to imply that you yourself do not believe in the system you propose. (It wouldnt surprise me, objectivism is a crude/weak "philosophy" that isnt even taken seriously by academics.)
Also i may add that if you do insist on those beliefs you have automatically to accept that _you_ yourself could be deemed worthless (once intrinsic value in life goes out the window, everyone can be worthless) and be left to die.
Regards

I am not "evading" anything. I am simply telling you that nearly all of those "good deeds" you mention are done for a personal benefit of some sort, rather than any concern for random people.

Second, there is nothing wrong with a society that lets worthless people die. In fact, I would consider that a laudable feature, since it maximizes the contributions citizens make to it. The death of an individual is unimportant to anyone except himself or people who know and value him. Let those people save him if they wish to, but don't make me do it, because I couldn't care less if he exists or not.

Third, the situations you are describing are extremely rare. People in the ambulance will not die if they are delayed by a few minutes except in very infrequent circumstances. I have never seen anyone raped or attacked in any way, even in poor neighbourhoods. Most people will not bother killing someone they dislike, even if they could get away with it; ostracism and exile are more common. Life is not full of emergencies. Most communities will be quite peaceful without any law enforcement at all. And nobody should require any help from anybody at all to survive.

Also, remember that it is in our current society, where you claim to value human life so highly, that people really do die on the doorstep of strangers who would not lift a hand to even call the police. In my sort of society, the undesirable thugs would be killed on first offence with no questions asked, weeding them out effectively. Currently they just post bail and go beat up somebody else. That's what your "worship of every life" comes to.