"If you read Rand at all, you know that a person violating the rights of others loses his privilege of not having his own violated. It is not "coercion" to stop a criminal by force. "

And if you had read Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau (you know, like our founding fathers did before they wrote that little thing called the US constitution? You know the federalist papers together represent an evolution of the ideas expressed by those three thinkers, right?) you will find much much richer and more complete and well-thought out versions of the same Idea- which Ayn Rand simply pirated and took credit for with. Then dumbed it down and spoon fed it to folks like you who believe she is the second coming. (oh, and also lambasted those three thinkers in the strongest terms possible along the way to try to cover up her fraud).

Give me a break.

From everything I can tell, Rand was the 'Dr. Phil' of Philosophy for her time- ripping off and dumbing-down Nietzche, Heidegger, Locke, Hobbes and even a dash of Plato/Socrates. All her notions, that I have read, have either been worthless and void or really sophomoric interpretations of those above philosophers. Like the kind that earns you a D for sheer stupidity.

If you want to throw that pirated 'Randian' notion around as an absolute truth, then lets explore that notion and its foundations.

If you had ever read Heidegger, you would know what an empirically and phenomenologiaclly tangled notion 'Individual' is, and how difficult it is to define a true individual and his most 'authentic' projections of himself. You can see the same thing in Anthropolgy. Not to say that the individual is in any sense unimportant or not a moral entity- but how distinctly different individuals are from eachother, and how embedded they are in the set of symbols and meanings of their context.

In other words, its not as simple and the Randian UnberMensch-ish notion of the enlightened individual.

What one person at time and place Y will determine as their best self interest, another person at time and place X will see as a leveling down by the other (Heidegger) or a subjugation of the Individual Will (Rand).

Its just not that simple.

Then there is the notion of priviledge or rights (you yourself mention that). Suppose there are individuals who submitted (for whatever reason) to governance by a dictators rule. Now, by 'freeing' those who did not submit by force (as you have it), have you then imprisoned those who wanted rule by Saddam? And if so, do we not sacrifice our 'rights'.

Ah, of course you will argue that those who submitted to Saddamns rule were morally incorrect in anycase, and therefore don't matter in this calculus. Well, now you are invoking universal maxims of morality that directly work against the Randian notion of the enligtened individual to be unfettered by morals ( because they are based upon the maximization fo good or the protection of the group), So this objection sort of detonates your original argument that included the Randian individual.

In the end, as per Hobbes and Locke, you will find that your original argument makes sense, but only in the context of social contracts. Iraq was not part of our social contract.

That argument aside, your 'Screwing for Chastity' argument has many simply semantic and empirical flaws. If we killed a bunch of Iraqis, how can it be that we freed them? If they are shooting at us, how can it be that we are welcome?

Oh, I see, the portion of Iraqis that DO want us and ARE NOT resisting us matter, and the others don't have any Moral Importance? So we can enforce our will upon their will morally? So we can be the Randian Society-Thug in that context, where it fits your Political aims? Do as I say and not as I do? Black and White? All Iraqis are either Saddam-loving terrorists or America-hugging fredom lovers?

How insane is that?

Use of philosophy in service of poilitics, Tom, is a very dangerous thing. Political ideology should spring from reasoned and vetted philosophical exploration. Philosophy in service of politcs, on the other hand, is simply a bludgeoning tool. Ask any good Marxist and he'll tell you the same.

Davin L.