I guess you had no choice but to feel that way.
The objectivist assumes that he (and to this point, only he) possess free will. He cannot provide a shred of verifiable evidence that he does.
That's why it's an axiom.
But neither can anyone provide a shred of verifiable evidence that he does not. So, he states the axiom: I have free will. Not out of objective necessity does he state this, but only out of a subjective preference over determinism.
No. If in fact we are all products of determinism, it doesn't matter what we think. But we all are convinced that we think, so the axiom covers the situation. If we're wrong, it doesn't matter anyway.
Given this axiom, a question arises: Do other persons possess free will? Looking for verifiable evidence in affirmative support, the objectivist finds none (post 378 ). In fact, the objectivist can find no verifiable evidence to support the assertion that any living being or any other matter/energy combination possess free will. He does observe that other persons exhibit complex responses to stimuli. And he knows that he is not able to predict the responses with any regularity. He realizes, however, that people are the most complex combinations of matter/energy he has observed, and that his inability to predict the responses of other people with any regularity reflects his lack of understanding of the complex combinations and workings of the matter/energy that people are composed of.
Well, that's evidence. If you don't think it's iron-clad, that's not a problem. It's the only evidence we have. And the "I have free will" axiom is one which they too can invoke; hence we all have free will. Again, if we're wrong, it doesn't really matter; but if we're right, we can proceed with discussions such as this.
Assuming that other persons have free will is not necessary for the objectivist to interact with, respond to, and study other people, just as assuming that the atmosphere has free will is not necessary for him to interact with, respond to, and study the atmosphere.
No. If I thought that you were truly incapable of reason (like the atmosphere) I wouldn't attempt to reason with you, as I don't with the atmosphere.
One can only conclude that the assumption made by the objectivist that other persons have free will is the result of personal preference, not necessity.
Not my conclusion at all.
This we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. - II Thessalonians 3:10b
From post 378:
Again, what objectively verifiable evidence can you provide that would give plausibility to the theory that you, or any living being, has free will?
There is none. Any test requiring me to choose between two alternatives may just as well have a determined outcome as a freely chosen one. That's why I say it must be assumed as an axiom.
End 378.
Please decide. Do you base the belief that others have free will on evidence, or is it an axiom (or, perhaps more accurately, a theorem based on the axiom that you yourself have free will)?