RE: Dilger's comments

Taking your points in order of importance:

"PPS: Due to this critical difference in philosophy, or at least in
of fellow party members, I may soon drop my association with

Psst. Got a secret for ya. Most Randists absolutely HATE the
Libertarian Party. Rand herself refused to associate with it,
because she believed its mere existence ("playing the game") was
tacit approval of government status-quo. If you reject Objectivism,
the best thing you can do is stay in the LP and give it lots of your
time and money. That really gets the Randists' blood boiling.

"We are governed by one and only one set of laws. The laws of
physics (and
some could argue the abstract laws as well such as math, and even
like natural selection and chaos theory). These laws cannot be
broken, and
are perfectly enforced!"

Careful. Remember "what goes up must come down" started falling away
in the 50's when we discovered something called "escape velocity".
Same with modern physicists finding loopholes in Einstein's
relativity. Note that real scientists don't use terms like "law" or
"fact" to refer to such things. Everything is a "theory". I hope
Block wasn't talking about his theories as "fact" or "law". If he
was, I've lost a lot of respect for the man.

Objectivism is a theory. Just like all the scientific theories, it's
based on observation and testing. I tend to actually agree with the
Objectivists' reasoning that when individual rights in a society
suffer, society as a whole suffers. The hypotheis stands up to
testing (USSR, China, Cuba). It is, however, a theory. Hawking
proved Einstein wrong, so you're welcome to prove Rand wrong.

"Because in the real world, there is no absolutism. What has the
absolutism of Ayn Rand gotten us? Nothing. I think Ayn Rand was

Ayn Rand was a good novelist. Not a prophet, not a political leader.
A novelist. Read her own comments about her books. (There's a
great forward by Peikoff that includes huge chunks of Rand's own
words in my 35th Anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged, if you can't
find it elsewhere.) She only considered herself a novelist. She
really didn't like writing books on political philosophy. She'd be
really pissed off to see the cult-like behavior of the Randists.
She'd never have wanted herself lumped into a category with L. Ron

Anyway, don't take the absolutists so seriously. They're sort of
like those guys in the pointy ears at the Star Trek conventions.
They can't really hurt you, and they're very much in the minority.