Similarly, Anthem is criticized, because in it Rand describes her views as a fully original system, something they certainly are not.

How so? I got the book right next to me, nowhere is there the slightest bumumption it’s an “original idea…” Now, it is true not many, may even a few would be an overestimate, have gone into the depths Ayn Rand has.

Rand’s views are also not something that you would necessarily find agreed to in Libertarian circles; even there, Objectivism is considered pretty extreme.

I don’t agree with every Libertarian, either. But, neither party suits me. I could be an Independent, but that’s too much hbumle as people will argue I’m one thing or another. Well that and my circle of friends doesn’t include any Libertarians aside from me.

It seems strange and self-contradictory to suggest that a ratification of an Amendment, or any other process, can be illegal. Even if this were the case, illegality is insufficiently strong as a reason for denial-such an action should be established as amoral, unethical or even immoral before you can act as if it’s bad. Otherwise, your reasoning at least appears to be circular.

Since I’m a bit lazy right now, so I’ll just link to what I mean – Wiki article – When I have more time, I’ll list additional stuff.

In regard to quotes on freedom or rights, you are going to need to define both concepts in regard to how you use them. Otherwise, they’re little more than rhetorical hammers.

Well Ayn Rand defines it quite well for me, but since you ask… freedom is quite simply the ability to act in accordance with the dictates of reason, in accordance with one’s own true self or values, in accordance with universal values (such as the True and the Good), and even moreso being able to act on a logical basis without choosing emotional favoritism. At least, that’s freedom in general. As Ayn Rand put it, we have different freedoms: Intellectual freedom, Political Freedom, and Economic Freedom. If we are have not even one of those, everything else is nothing more than a totalitarian system.

It seems like you’re using a heavily Kantian system here, but I’m not sure, because Rand wasn’t quite Kantian in her views, either. I fear we aren’t going to communicate very well, because I’m more of a Pragmatist or a Consequentialist in my views. For me, reducing suffering or raising unemployment are more important than preserving fiscal rights. Regardless, I am interested in understanding just where you’re coming from.

While I know of Kante (refresh my mind if you will), tell me how I seem to be using a Kantian system. As my only style is cold and logical. I don’t try to be lukewarm or hot, just cold.