And, hey, is there one person here, or several?  I think you have a lot of great ideas, but oddities keep cropping up.  Maybe there is an issue of cost, and this is the development so far, but gosh, squish in some instructive statements we visitors can use so as to make the most of what is available.  (I thought this was WordPress at first, but who is “Whiskey”?)

Your comments to the dear Diva are virtually incoherent.  What on Earth is the meaning of this: “[Rand] clearly support govt aggression in military, police and judiciary.“?

Had you been reading properly, you would know that Rand supported a state monopoly on the use of retaliatory force via the military, police and judiciary.  Knowing that a thinking person would never consider that to be “aggression”, your comment makes no sense whatsoever.
 

“A DRO (Dispute Resolution Organization) is a Libertarian Anarchist piece of nonsense, which fails to grasp that “Competing Governments” is a ticket to dictatorship.

Finally, r_d, please take the time form sentences that are coherent and complete thoughts, in many cases they are gibberish.

*  On “idea thief”, you should discover the Stolen Concept.
*  Claiming I am any kind of Libertarian is an astonishing presumption, quite ignoring the objective situation of the slaves.
*   You claimed that, “None of the slaves remained with their owners after abolition.”  Prove your point.  All of Thomas Jefferson’s slaves stayed with him even though he was opposed to slavery.  Ask yourself why.
*  The rest of your comments on slavery are an anachronistic attempt to impose today’s values on the people of the 17 & 1800′s, which is patently irrational.  Men have to learn. 

Even Ayn Rand admitted that without the Industrial Revolution she could not have understood, with certainty, the true nature of Capitalism.

Your remarks are fatuous poppycock.

She was a philosophical anarchist with a stern outlook towards the process of “freedom” and that process she named Objectivism.

What the hell is Philosophical Anarchist Unpretentious? She clearly support govt aggression in military, police and judiciary. She clearly wanted only and only a group of people to have all the power to punish and seek justice, and supported their monopoly.

In fact all the quotes you gave in response to Richard’s similar question, it just seems like “philosophical anarchist” is another word for inconsistent anarchist, or “Can’t really oppose anarchism completely”, or “Can’t embrace the govt that much or moral grounds”.

The basic idea of philosophical anarchist or Objectivist remains consistent, i.e, government is   ”necessary evil” but argue that citizens do not have a moral obligation to obey the state when its laws conflict with individual autonomy.

Then why do you support the govt if nobody is obliged to obey the state when their laws conflict with individual autonomy.

Isn’t an individual free to NOT obliged to obey any private organization if its policies do not agree to individual autonomy.

In fact disobeying the state, and disobeying a private organization, you know it well which would be more easier to do. If you disagree with an organization you run to a competitor’s organization. If you disagree with the state, you run to……..

When you go to a private competitor DRO(Dispute Resolution Organization), they will do a simple profit-loss calculation whether its profitable to support you or not. If the actions of rogue DRO are invading the private rights of enough number of people that spending money on fighting the rogue DRO will result in profit, then the DROs will fight the rogue DRO.

On the other hand, by establishing a monopoly of the govt in defence, judiciary and defense, you are strengthening the Govt to be such a HUGE monolithic organization that you CANNOT FIGHT against the GOVT!

I mean Unpretentious, support the govt all you want, oppose anarchy all you want, but don’t bullshit about fighting the govt in a State society. Can anyone fight the American govt right now? Try smoking weed in America nd see what happens to your Liberties.

He was an idea theif at the start, then much of what he developed was as unoriginal as the gibberish produced by philosopy professors echoing -or rewording- men like Kant & Hegel.

I take strong exceptions to the usage of the term “idea theif”, its as lousy as calling you “word butcher”, “serial misspeller”.
Ayn Rand DOES claims that Rothbard stole her work, but then if that is to be accepted, then the whole money speech of Francisco is stolen from Carl Manger(the founder of Austrian School of Economics).
Also “Who is John Galt?” is a stolen line from “Who is Henry Galt?” by Garrett Garrett in his novel “The Driver”[insert Unpretentious diva's strong rebuttal of how lousy that novel is here]
Secondly, Rothbard was an economist, and it doesn’t strike to me that you have read his work. Sometimes it becomes too irritating to hear people thrashing him when they haven’t even read his work in economics. Rothbard and Rand both fight on the common platform, Rand arrived at it from philosophy, Rothbard from Economics. If you read the Subjectivist approach of Mises onto Economics, you will realize that Rothbard simply tried to create an Objectivist version of Misesian economics.

Second, your issue with land for slaves and feudal servants: instant emancipation would have been disastrous for slaves in most regions of the world, given the cultural attitudes of the time (say, early 1800s).

Again you believe in “Utilitarian Libertarianism” where Liberty should be only embraced if it offers more utility to maximum people rather than based on their natural right?

Slaves were property to be cared for, and their owners provided room, board and clothing.  A fool does not look after his property.  Those fools are used to paint the standard (false) view of slavery in the Southern States.

And how did these slave owners ended up becoming the owner of the body of the slaves? Lemme remind you in a just society, there is a consistent way by which you can become owner of a property without using physical coercion. That is “homesteading principle”.

Slave owners have not homesteaded the bodies of the slaves. Slaves themselves are the just owner of their bodies. So any kind of ownership by the slave owners on the slaves is as much void as the ownership of a stolen property by a thief.

You keep on talking about their current situation and situation back then, but you are missing out the point. There is NO MORAL justification for the slavery.

Many freed slaves remained with the men who had been their owners, because that was truly where they were better off, especially economically.

Yeah, so voluntarily choosing, many slaves chose to remain with their owners. So what is the big problem here?
Set them free, if you are right as you say, then they would choose to remain with the owners. If not then they will leave them, which proves you are wrong.

Now lets see what happened really? None of the slaves remained with their owners after abolition.

With respect to each of your quotations:
1> Rand’s point concerns the threat, and acknowledges that gov’t “holds a legal monopoly” on the use of force against disarmed victims.  That is, if gov’t goes beyond its constitutional role by initiating force —when its citizens have no legal or rational right to retaliate against those who initiate force— then it is a true threat.  This is absolutely not an advocacy of political and economic anarchism.

2> Here she is speaking of the harm to prosperity (that is, the economy) that results when a government interferes in supporting or inhibiting consensual (non-fraudulent) trade.  See #1.

3> Here she is speaking of the manner in which politicians propose violations of individual rights in order to obtain voter support to obtain greater un-constitutional political power.  Again, see #1.

4>  This is a general statement about a culture, however there will a) always be individuals who violate others’ rights, and there will b) always be borderline issues that are more a matter of the Philosophy of Law and that require a civilized reconciliation by an outside arbiter, namely the courts.  This is anti-anarchism placed on an individual basis.  N.B.  This line of reasoning  leads to an understanding as to why a crime is both a crime against both the victim and against society as a whole.

In conclusion, not one of these quotes suggests that Rand supports anarchism, philosophical  (so far as I can grasp your meaning of the term via your usage) or otherwise.  Those quotations you provided did, indeed, address the point of contention, but your final point is completely correct.

[There is no need for snotty remarks that spin a comment into being some sort of "game"?   Brevity can leave openings in an argument, but such openings in no way mean the writer is ignorant of what would fill the gaps.  They are justification for questioning.]

For your type of games, I would like to mention you some quotes by Ayn rand herself.

1>
A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
Ayn Rand

2>
Government “help” to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.
Ayn Rand

3>
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand

4>
When man learns to understand and control his own behavior as well as he is learning to understand and control the behavior of crop plants and domestic animals, he may be justified in believing that he has become civilized.
Ayn Rand

These are Ayn Rand’s words about government which clearly indicates her idea matching with the philosophy of philosophical anarchism.
Anyways, that is not a point of contention, Objectivism itself is the means of Individual Liberty, which ultimately leads to the denial of any majority rule on any individual which is the “Smallest Minority”.

Your wrote, Rand “was a philosophical anarchist…“.  Please explain what you mean by philosophical anarchist.

Rand was very literal with language, and understood every term she used with stunning depth.   She was explicitly opposed to anarchism however anyone warped the term.  Anarchism was & is an instant indicator of insufficient thought &/or subjectivism. 

Rand did not view government as a necessary evil.  She took pains to make it clear that government was an absolute positive requirement for ensuring every citizen had a rational recourse in the event of being subjected to force initiated by others.  That force may be domestic, hence police and courts, or foreign, hence the military.   Of course, those three —police, courts and military— also needed administration.  Courts would also track ownership of certain properties etc. as part of ensuring individual rights to same.

The epistemic status of “Capitalistic Anarchism” is remarkably similar to the epistemic status of “Unpretentious Diva”,

[The ABOUT page of this site does little to explain who blogs here.  Knowing these things can influence how one responds.]

First, Murray Newton Rothbard ‘glommed’ onto a few of Rand’s ideas, never grasped how they were derived or integrated (those were vital steps he “blanked out”), then ‘ran’ with the pieces.   He was an idea theif at the start, then much of what he developed was as unoriginal as the gibberish produced by philosopy professors echoing -or rewording- men like Kant & Hegel.  Even you describe him as an anarchist, which is an insane politico-economic ideal.  That should point alone should cause you to throw up some serious, red, warning flags that something is wrong with his structure of ideas and the arguments he used to support them.  <i>E.g.,</i>laissez-faire capitalism is not “market anarchy”, it depends on contract enforcement in terms of individual rights.

Second, your issue with land for slaves and feudal servants: instant emancipation would have been disastrous for slaves in most regions of the world, given the cultural attitudes of the time (say, early 1800s).  Even once freed a slave would have worked his plot of land from dawn till dusk to feed his family, acquiring only a tiny amount of tradeable goods (&/or cash) for obtaining salt and a few other necessities.  He faced racism whereever he turned.

Slaves were property to be cared for, and their owners provided room, board and clothing.  A fool does not look after his property.  Those fools are used to paint the standard (false) view of slavery in the Southern States. The economic difference between a slave and a freed Black man was not that great. While the moral difference, in being free to choose one’s location, work and family is huge.   Many freed slaves remained with the men who had been their owners, because that was truly where they were better off, especially economically.

In fact. modern N. Americans are in worse shape now than the slaves were.  Although we are free to move, we cannot escape taxation that, for most people, amounts to nearly half of every day’s productive effort.  We are able to sustain ourselves through having enough freedom to innovate, enough technology to be vastly more productive, and enough income to live well on what is left.  It remains that without that taxation, even though we would incur other expenses for services —but at lower cost to us— that the government has assumed, our standard of living would be enormously better.  That is, in the context of the 1800s, the slave had much of what was available at the time whereas, in our modern context, we are much worse off than we could be.

I totally support the idea of distributing government lands to a body of people who were victims of slavery or feudalism.  In applying that practice, it would be wrong to go to more than one generation past the enslaved generation.  This principle should also be applied to aboriginal reservation lands, whereupon they would also assume the same rights and become subject to the same laws as non-aboriginals.  Anything else is racism.

In a nation of “rags to riches to rags in three generations”, there is no justification in punishing someone who is one or more generations descending from an ancestor who engaged in wrongful behavior.  In the same way, such 2nd generation descendants, or later, should not receive special benefits for deprivations experienced by their ancestors.  The lives of the 1st generation can be said to have suffered for their parents’ deprivations, but after that, in freedom, a man chooses his own course.

All of the above is, I think, consistent with Ayn Rand’s ideas.  Her task as a philosopher was not to answer to every detail that someone such as yourself might be concerned with.  Instead, it is your job to work with proper principles, which she truly has identified, to apply them to such details.  That is, she laid out distinct fundamentals, many of which were either completely original or were more precisely elucidated versions of existing principles.  

I should add, Rand did not need to reference most of her sources because they were either obvious or were so cultural in nature that others could detail the origin.  Those she did idenfify were often the progenitors of ideas that were revised somewhat by more recent minds.  The latter did not deserve special mention.