What isn’t basic Ayn Rand, as the comment I responded to implied, is your attempt at a defense of liberty. Which, by the way, I am still not exactly sure why you made. Wait, I am sure why – an overzealous attempt insulate to your actions from objective moral judgement by emphasizing that they should be allowed politically – I’m just not sure what rhetoric in that guy’s post prompted it. You talked past him and attacked an argument he didn’t make.

I’m equally as baffeled as to why you used it against me just now. I made no such suggestion that objective moral principles, if they are ever to be followed widely, need to be enforced by government. I merely argued that those actions which the government does take – as well as the many actions it would refuse to take in a free society – have, like all moral human action, an objective justification. That freedom and small government are necessary and justified, not to protect man’s whims, but to protect the free functioning of his mind to rational (ie: ethical) decisions. Such decisions are which sustain his life and bring him happiness, and such decisions can only be made voluntarily. Again, basic Ayn Rand.

I was just defending her views from distortion through false association.

And therein lies the problem with your glib statement…exactly whose ethics are we using here? Who is the arbiter of what is ethical and what isn’t for a person who wants to clip toenails for a living? Or sell gas or groceries, or make pornography?

It’s easy for those who sit on their ass with no real conviction, simply satisfied enough to let government control every bit of their lives and criticize those who want to own their own lives. After all you already laid your life and your freedom and your will at the feet of the federal government, you haven’t anything left worth fighting for….

As Ayn Rand once said: “In any conflict between two men who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent who wins.”