AbA

You're moving goalposts now. Without evidence, you accused me of trying to "divert attention" from "Republican hypocrisy" through rationalization (where do I mention a political party anywhere?). You obviously don't know what the word means because I don't rationalize the court decision anywhere (in fact, I disagree with it). When I pointed out I have no connection to the GOP or motive to "spin" for them, you shifted to an argument of irrationality, which was not the accusation - spinning for a political party was.

I've noticed a pattern of you jumping to extreme conclusions and being combative towards others just for the sake of being contrarian. Some would call this trolling, but I think it's just a compulsive need for you to prove how much purer and smarter you are than everyone else, i.e., the worst tendencies of objectivism.

As for your inane contention that my piece is "irrational" because there is "no connection" between religious liberties (the subject of the ruling) and economic liberties, I am making a comparison between the two to draw a contrast. Obviously there is *some* connection between the two because they are both types of liberties - that's a connection. Social and economic positions are often compared and contrasted and discussed together in these political dialogues. There is nothing "irrational" about comparing two separate but related concepts, and you shouldn't read in a sinister partisan motive where there is none.

Well I'm back from my employment adventure to Singapore.  Everything came together and went much quicker than any one was anticipating it happening.   We loaded and sea fastened the jack up drilling rig "Key Hawaii" on to the heavy transport vessel "Transshelf".   It left for Bahrain the day after we finished up.
 
Got to spend 4 days playing tourist and getting taken around to some very nice places.   Also spent a day over in Johor, Malaysia seeing where the company I was working for is in the process of getting ready to build a new machining, welding and fabrication facility to service the office shore industry.   I
think there's a good chance I might get the opportunity to go back to live and work there for extended periods.
 
Over all, Singapore has to be the most modern, up beat, industrially booming and economically expanding place I've ever been to.   It's also the third most expensive city in the world in which to live.   Talk about some sticker shock, the average price we paid for a pint of beer was around $18 SD.  Luckily for me the cost of all my lodging and most of my food was picked up by my employer.
 
While I didn't see or hear any mention of Ayn Rand or Objectivism in my short time there I didn't get any indication that any of her ideas are banned or would otherwise get you in trouble for openly discussing or advocating for.   I guess I could have done a little more in depth research into the matter (like checking a book store for the availability of her books) but I was for the most part just caught up in going with the flow of those I was there with.  
 
If any one has any specific things they'd like me to try and comment on please let me know.
 
 
 
 
.  

Hell Nicky, with the exception of the occasional foray into midget clown porn I stay away from most of that stuff here at home.

As a vet (US Navy 1975-1981) I wish to tell you that I find what you have to say on this subject on this particular day(and the manner in which you're saying it) to be at a minimum at least an exercise in seriously poor judgement.

Have you ever thought to consider that if the time and place of your birth would have made you of military age in Nazi Germany you might have got swept up in things and simply ended up being a "Good German" yourself?

The implication, of course, being that most of America's veterans are as you described and therefore deserve only contempt. You site Ayn Rand but if would read her essay "Don't Let it Go" you would know how much you disagree with her on the nature of the American people. If you had read the section of Galt's speech on mind and body you would know that she would consider your ideas a surrender of the world to evil.
 
Your "salute" for Memorial Day is disgusting.

laz,
 
I don't think that was a case of Nicky personally calling I.A a "scumbag".  I believe he was trying to make the point that if you get a reputation for going around taking advantage of the short comings of your fellow man you run the risk of others not coming to very flattering judgements concerning your basic character.   There's a big difference between between being a savy, knowledgeable, hard barganing, Trader that knows how to deal with others to mutual benefit and being some one who just goes around preying on the cupidity of the lesser lights among us.

I don't see how a Christian can reasonably be considered to be "totaly harmonious" with the end results of Rand's ideas (Capitalism) when that ideology is so diametrically opposed to the basic metaphysical precursor ideas (such things as the mind body dichotomy and the primacy of consciousness vs. the primacy of existence) that are the foundation (roots) on which her end product (Capitalism) depends. I'd have to say that it's a prime example of some one wanting to enjoy the "fruits" of some thing while at the same time not just denying the roots but holding ideas that actively work to poison them.

To put it in terms of the "parable of the talents" I'd have to say it's worse than "reaping where one has not sown" in that it's a case of "expecting to reap where one has sown nothing but salt".

That's nice. However, as far as I can tell, ever since he arrived, he managed to make every thread a debate over his own views. Views which have nothing whatsoever in common with the subject of this forum, the philosophy of Objectivism.

Furthermore, he has never in any way indicated that he is at all familiar with the works of Ayn Rand. Nor has he expressed any interest in her, or her philosophy. He never asks questions about Objectivism, he never so much as answers a question someone else asks, with anything related to Objectivism. The closest he came was when he remarked that Ayn Rand was great because she wrote like a dude. Not very close, if you ask me.

All he has done is to answer every thread in a way consistent with his Christian morality and Third Wave Republican politics, and entirely inconsistent with Objectivism. Even Kate the British lady (who is also here to push her own politics and nothing else) has at least tried to feign a little interest in Ayn Rand, early on (she's a very nice, polite member too, btw., just like moralist, which is why they're able to hang around even though they're constantly off topic).

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with you two having all the conversations you'd like, but I would really prefer it if they took place somewhere else. Somewhere where they're at least tangentially relevant to the purpose of the forum. Or not even that: it would be fine if they were restricted to a couple of threads. Like this one. Have this one all for yourselves. But the reason why I'm reading this forum and posting on it is because it's about Ayn Rand. If it was a free for all debate forum, I wouldn't be here. It would be a much more populous place, no doubt, but with a whole new set of members. Those of us interested in Objectivism would find a different forum on the same subject.

However, since this forum is still about Objectivism, I say: give me one skeptical progressive religious fundamentalist racist asshole moocher who is interested in talking about Ayn Rand, over the nicest, smartest, most self-sufficient guy, who isn't.

At risk of assuming the nature of a broken record, I'll restate:

"You seem to imply that if they were not his "kind" (you keep forgetting a space between those two words), then Galt would hunt them down and continue the purge; or, if he stumbled across of a band of altruists in the wilderness, he'd exterminate them on the spot.

You curse Galt for wanting to live, and damn him for not caring enough to stop living his life long enough to show you how to live yours. It's his life! That's kind of the theme of the novel, that Atlas has a right to his own life, no matter what the demands of the entire globe might be. Galt doesn't want to plie-drive the globe, Ragnar doesn't want to teach them a lesson they'll never forget, they just wanna be fuckin' free, man, and the easiest way to do it AIN'T going door to door with pamphlets extolling the virtues of freedom. They saw that the world was going to shit, and they withdrew to a safe location... one where whatever the rest of assholes on the planet did to themselves didn't affect them, one where they could be free.

What could Galt have said to Cuffy Meigs that would have made a man like that want to give it all up?"

And what about the babies... all the babies, so innocent, so unentangled with the affairs of the world.... Indeed, unentangled and and innocent they may be, but John Galt's responsibility they are not. Should he remain a slave, because society has rigged it so that if he frees himself, innocents suffer?

Why wage war or commit violence against a society that is already committing suicide? Why do you equate the recognition of the fact that a society is comitting suicide, with the murder of that society by the one who recognizes that fact and steps out of its influence?

You even admit that it's moral to let a society act how it wants, rather than wage war against it, which is just what Galt did. What exactly is your beef?