Rackham, Loeb Classical Library, 1926, 1982, p.

[…] came with its own law, and it has been the weapon of equality. As recent as the Victorian era, women could not divorce their husbands, even when the husbands were cruel to their wives. In Islam, divorce was allowed from the very […]

Find bizarre and offbeat news about people, nature and unexplained mysteries at ABC News.

Since wrongs of omission present difficulties of definition and implementation in any case, this is not too serious a fault for Rand's principle, unless it is to be insisted upon that the principle is perfect, rigorous, and exhaustive.

Perhaps she had picked that up without realizing it was from Kant [].

Few writers convey an irresistible ferocity of convictions as Rand does.

This event was held by the , which, before its termination, had monthly discussions, debates, or presentations on "free markets, Objectivism & investing." The proposition to be debated on this occasion was, "A government that performs its fundamental functions is preferable to a system of anarcho-capitalism in which these functions are privatized," with Epstein defending and Huemer rebutting the thesis.

Rand's "Objectivism" is, indeed, Rationalistic metaphysics.

People who casually toss around ideas about what should and should not be in society, or about how much of people's income should be taxed, or what restrictions should be put on property rights, often don't seem to be aware that they are talking about sending men with guns, the police, against people who don't agree with such dispositions and who may not be willing to comply with them.

No use of force would be involved, simply a wrong of omission.

"Objectivist" epistemology has not been awakened, as Kant was by Hume, from its "dogmatic slumber."Rand's fundamental law of morality, that one is never justified in the use of force against others (though I am now told that this originally came from Lysander Spooner), has been adopted as the basic Principle of the .

It would be foolish to do so, though many do.

Thus, since it has not seemed wise to many to "allow" people to harm themselves by freely using opiates, cocaine, or marijuana, people have shown themselves willing to harm the uncooperative with equal or greater severity by fining or seizing their wealth and property, putting them in jail for long periods among hardened, violent criminals, and denying them various rights and privileges of citizenship and commerce in addition to the penalties, such as they may be, of drug use -- in short, by in retribution for disobeying "society." Behind even those sanctions, furthermore, is the threat of should the uncooperative choose to defend their Natural Rights to control of their own bodies by "resisting" the representatives of "authority," the men with guns, by force.

Is stealing someone's unattended luggage at an airport a moral wrong?

First, it makes no provision for , which means it would be morally acceptable to let a drowning person die or a starving person starve even if it would present no burden or difficulty to rescue them.