Repairman

Laika,
Welcome to the Forum; I find your statements above particularly interesting. It would not be the first time I have engaged a self-identifying Communist here, but you seem to be questioning your own rationale regarding Marx. You must understand by now that there is no utopian paradise, nor any process of achieving one, at least in the sense intended by Marx. Objectivism does not promise utopia. Rather, it is a philosophy detailing a path to personal fulfillment and possibly the creation of the most just society possible under a purely capitalist system, separating economic activity from government action. We may never arrive at the later, but you have every opportunity to discover more about the former. I am unable to offer any recommendations with regard to your depression, only to say that in my youth, I could only see the bleak outcome of social and political trends, if carried to their extremes, and it frightened me. I knew nothing about Ayn Rand or her Objectivism, only the absurdity of social, political, and cultural norms. I knew about Marx; I always considered him to have been a fraud, as well as an easy target for Right-Wing pundits and common place conversation. But one of the great contributing factors to the problems of our times is that few if any people question their own notions of right and wrong, let alone seek out a philosophical school of thought. It is apparent from your posts that you have put a great deal of thought into your philosophical outlook. As for your list of six questions opening this thread, I will limit my response to only number six: Gordon Gekko is a fictional character, a caricature created by Oliver Stone. If you look at Stone's body of works, you see many films critical of American militarism, capitalism, and Right-Wing points of view in general with no regard for honesty. Objectivism does not support Right-Wing politics any more than it supports Left-Wing politics. Inasmuch as I hope you will keep examining the works of Ayn Rand, I hope you find the honesty lacking in Marx, and possibly even your happiness.

It is hard when something is mixed. Sometimes one's immediate feeling toward it comes from whatever side of it you're seeing that day. 
A couple of years ago, I was in a small mid-western resort town on July 4th and thousands of tourists (mostly from elsewhere in the state) had turned out to see the fireworks. Trucks streamed in from all the nearby little towns and farms. The atmosphere was festive. There was benevolence all around. The red-white-and blue was respected, not as a symbol of something above us on an altar, but as a symbol of who we are. Not on a pedestal to be saluted -- though that too -- but, in casual clothing, in funny head-dress, in flashing lights to be worn for the evening. 
All around was a feeling of family and of sharing a value. Very few cops in sight, and yet the thousands self-organizing in very orderly ways. If you asked those people, in that moment, if freedom was their top value, if the individual is important, if we should recognize the individual's right to his own life and happiness...you'd probably find lots of agreement. It's all good, but it is mostly emotional.
As you peel away and understand the intellectual roots, contradictions appear. I won't say the emotions are unfounded, that there is no "there there". When Hollywood makes a movie of a maverick going up against the world and winning, huge audiences love the theme. It is who they are: sometimes, on some topics, and in some emotional states.
Nationalism is dangerous when it goes beyond a general benevolent celebration of sharing good values like freedom and individualism. It usually does, and we have a good person like Robert E. Lee rejecting Lincoln's attempt to get him to lead a Union Army, even though he could "anticipate no greater calamity for the country than dissolution" and thought  "secession is nothing but revolution". Why? For "honor" -- which really translates to honoring a convention where you are loyal to your home state.
Throw in ideas about the role of government in helping people in all sorts of situations. Thrown in ideas about inequality being caused by oppression. And faulty ideas about economics. And suspicions about bankers running the world. Add back the occasional cheering of the maverick who defies authority; but also add back the desire to control other people's behavior: if they're gay, or marrying someone of another race, or smoking pot, or even having a beer when they're 20 years and 11 months! 
That is the contradiction that is America.
Still, you should feel free to choose what emotions you wish to invest in symbols like the flag. You do not have to salute a flag and think you're saluting a tortured contradiction that is eating itself from the inside out  .  You can salute it for the right reasons, or for what you think it once stood for.

Republicans and Democrats both horrible.  Need a new party which recognizes the only proper role of government is the protection of individual rights, with a plan to gradually take us there.
Horrible, so Bad, so Bad!

Eiuol,
I shall give your perspective due consideration. I find it difficult to respond to an audio conversation, especially when I detect "loaded terms," or indications of bias against Objectivism. It is impossible to insert commentary into such a dialog as Szalapski's podcast, that is, commentary requiring context related to the opposing statement. Perhaps this is merely a matter of different techniques of learning, as you've suggested. The advantage of this forum is the option of isolating a comment (particularly one that may require clarification or context), and responding to the specific portion of the entire statement. It is not my intent to discourage the recently-interested from exploring the ideas of Ayn Rand. Quite the opposite, there are times when I need clarification in order to judge the intent of the other person. 
Szalapski,
Was there anything I said that appears to need clarification or context?
I am still somewhat mystified by this reference: "...more Objectivist than 99% of the population," and the element of "remaining impurity." Could you explain?

I hope you understand my defensive post regarding your conversation with your friend. Much of what I heard on your podcast was defense of the altruistic status quo. There was no context provided in the criticisms made by Zack Schmitt; as remember it, there was no defense of Objectivist ethics worth mentioning. To the point that you or your friends are not experts, this is quite apparent, and I did not assume that to be the case. Without an advocate to defend the opposing view, the conversation becomes an indictment of Objectivism rather than an argument or discussion. I take a strong position in defense of reason, individualism, and capitalism. Your guest was an advocate of mystical, altruistic, and collectivist rhetoric, all too common in our society.
Ayn Rand points out that throughout the ages, man has followed a moral code rooted in either the spiritual or the social. Identifying oneself as holding Judeo-Christian beliefs is sufficient evidence that one is religious, and, (at least in case of Judeo-Christian beliefs) this suggest that one receives one's code of morality through mystic revelations. Some people will go through life meditating on mantras such as: "Who knows?" or "There's nothing I can do about it." or "Everyone does it." To say that: "We can't know ourselves," may be true for some people, but I know who I am, and anyone making any  claim to the contrary certainly does not. If others hold their own opinion of me, I can do nothing about that, other than to alter my behavior accordingly. If I have no respect for an individual's opinion, I make no compliance or behavioral correction; if the person holds some value and/or authority over me, be they a client, a dear friend, my boss, a law officer, then I take into consideration the changes necessary to improve our relations. I might dress myself in more sophisticated clothes for a special occasion. But it is the very height of absurdity to cater to the opinions of every Minnie, Moe, and Jack. But at least Minnie, Moe, and Jack are people, and not ghosts.
After one accepts these truths as self-evident, one may find oneself on the proverbial horns of a dilemma. What is morality, and why am I certain as to what morality is? Objectivism answers those question and many more without contradiction. While you certainly will find disagreement among the participants in this forum, you make your own rational judgements, with or without this forum. Rationality does not come about automatically; it takes practice. Inasmuch as you've identified yourself as agnostic, it should be pointed out that holding ambiguities as to the existence of supernatural forces may lead you to errors in judgment, as well as errors in actions. Moral ambiguities are at the very center of chaos. I, too, was for many years ambiguous about the existence of God; my experience has been that I am far better off with objective reality as my moral set-point. You be the judge of that which is best for you.

Well said Repairman.  
I do, however, take issue with your own modesty and implicit self effacement.  
You already know more than you think you know (or admit to yourself). Whether or not you understand the fundamentals of why you know or how you know it, what you know, your implicit philosophy, is far superior to the intricate ramblings of madmen.
Also, although it it not my place to suggest what is a value to you, your positive and insightful contributions to the ideas exchanged on this thread are a value to me and frankly that value is diminished when you waste your time responding to the likes of Ilya.  But, as I said it is not my place to suggest what you should do.
Good premises.
 
 

Szalapski,
I resort to stating the obvious. You have made no specific criticism of Objectivism. It may be that you have no specific criticism of Objectivism. Having listened to the audio recording most recently listed on your podcast, it seems apparent that you have a desire to undermine the validity of Objectivism. While the motive for such an endeavor eludes me, I wish to offer these comments:
Objectivism is a fully comprehensive philosophy. Most rational and coherent individuals would find it easy to live with the moral assertions of Objectivism, if not for the fact that there presently exists a ubiquitous acceptance of irrational ideas. The popularity of these irrational ideas undermines the likelihood of Objectivsim becoming a mainstream or well-accepted philosophical norm in the leading industrial nations of the world. Religious clerics, modern philosophy professors, and Hollywood producers are hard at work preserving the mystical/collectivist standard of ethics. Do you really believe that someone seeking a rational explanation for the general insanity of the world would be best served by presenting "Objections to Objectivism" without a firm grasp of the concept of Objectivism? Referring to the podcast, would a person questioning the foundations of ethics benefit from the confusing salad of unsubstantiated assertions I heard in the conversation you had with Zack Schmitt? How does Zack Schmitt, an admitted mystic who claims "we can't know your own selves," (paraphrased) qualify as an expert on Objectivism?
On this thread alone, you have received feedback from people with a much broader breadth of knowledge in the formal study of philosophy than anything I would care to engage. If you have arguments with Ayn Rand's metaphysical or epistemological assertions, I recommend you address these concerns directly; perhaps these more scholarly participants could help you with these more abstract fundamental, however I always recommend some self-study followed by your own independent contemplation before engaging in any argument. As for me, a man of less academic reasoning, I am perfectly willing to accept the notion that that which I perceive is quite real, unless there may be some deception involved, or something as yet to be discovered. Deception is a matter of reality, as is the undiscovered. As for the manner of reacting and responding to reality, that is a matter for every individual to determine for his/her self. It is a matter of morality.
The question of morality in Objectivist thought is not very difficult to grasp, unless one is confused by religious beliefs, or the skeptical premise that knowledge is an illusion, or a combination of both. Not everyone would benefit from a society governed by Objectivist morality. The indigent, the criminally insane, the inherently corrupt, and certainly those who presently prosper from the sales of mystical products would find themselves isolated from a community of rational thinkers. The majority of rational thinkers would thrive and flourish. If our present-day civilization spirals downward to the depths of a new dark age, it won't be because the world was populated by too many Objectivists. That fate would be the property of the mystics and skeptics. It is my profound conviction, and one supported with evidence, that the entire population of the world and beyond will live more contented, if not more joyous lives, when the reality, so obvious to Objectivists, becomes the standard of philosophic thought.

Szalapski,
I resort to stating the obvious. You have made no specific criticism of Objectivism. It may be that you have no specific criticism of Objectivism. Having listened to the audio recording most recently listed on your podcast, it seems apparent that you have a desire to undermine the validity of Objectivism. While the motive for such an endeavor eludes me, I wish to offer these comments:
Objectivism is a fully comprehensive philosophy. Most rational and coherent individuals would find it easy to live with the moral assertions of Objectivism, if not for the fact that there presently exists a ubiquitous acceptance of irrational ideas. The popularity of these irrational ideas undermines the likelihood of Objectivsim becoming a mainstream or well-accepted philosophical norm in the leading industrial nations of the world. Religious clerics, modern philosophy professors, and Hollywood producers are hard at work preserving the mystical/collectivist standard of ethics. Do you really believe that someone seeking a rational explanation for the general insanity of the world would be best served by presenting "Objections to Objectivism" without a firm grasp of the concept of Objectivism? Referring to the podcast, would a person questioning the foundations of ethics benefit from the confusing salad of unsubstantiated assertions I heard in the conversation you had with Zack Schmitt? How does Zack Schmitt, an admitted mystic who claims "we can't know your own selves," (paraphrased) qualify as an expert on Objectivism?
On this thread alone, you have received feedback from people with a much broader breadth of knowledge in the formal study of philosophy than anything I would care to engage. If you have arguments with Ayn Rand's metaphysical or epistemological assertions, I recommend you address these concerns directly; perhaps these more scholarly participants could help you with these more abstract fundamental, however I always recommend some self-study followed by your own independent contemplation before engaging in any argument. As for me, a man of less academic reasoning, I am perfectly willing to accept the notion that that which I perceive is quite real, unless there may be some deception involved, or something as yet to be discovered. Deception is a matter of reality, as is the undiscovered. As for the manner of reacting and responding to reality, that is a matter for every individual to determine for his/her self. It is a matter of morality.
The question of morality in Objectivist thought is not very difficult to grasp, unless one is confused by religious beliefs, or the skeptical premise that knowledge is an illusion, or a combination of both. Not everyone would benefit from a society governed by Objectivist morality. The indigent, the criminally insane, the inherently corrupt, and certainly those who presently prosper from the sales of mystical products would find themselves isolated from a community of rational thinkers. The majority of rational thinkers would thrive and flourish. If our present-day civilization spirals downward to the depths of a new dark age, it won't be because the world was populated by too many Objectivists. That fate would be the property of the mystics and skeptics. It is my profound conviction, and one supported with evidence, that the entire population of the world and beyond will live more contented, if not more joyous lives, when the reality, so obvious to Objectivists, becomes the standard of philosophic thought.

While these books are excellent works of fictional literature, only TVoS, (The Virtue of Selfishness), is a non-fiction book, which mainly addresses morality and politics. It was my first choice when I decided to learn more about Ayn Rand and her philosophy, in fact, and I still consider it the best introduction to Objectivism. For a more complete and orderly view of Objectivism, I would recommend Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff.
Now, perhaps you could share your "problems with Objectivism," or as StrictlyLogic suggested, start a new thread. I will take a look at your query on other preexisting threads, and see if there is anything I could contribute.

Whose fault is it?
If someone is a legitimate threat to anyone, that must be proven by objective standards. "To believe" that a threat exists may be brought on by your own emotional reaction to someone's behavior. Cruelty to animals is not objective evidence that a person poses a threat to people. It is a problem that should be dealt with by some method other than imprisonment. Taking away a person's freedom and designating that person as a criminal is much more serious than the life of an animal.
Iatan Petru, I can see that your interest in Objectivism is sincere. But you ought to research the Objectivist moral position on human freedom a bit more. Welcome to the forum.

Would you also incarcerate the 29% who pose no threat of violence to their wives or other humans? I hope you understand that individuals must be judged as individuals, rather than statistics and potential threats. Individuals can only be judged for their actions, not on the basis of some psychological profile, or other subjective evidence. If they are legitimately judged to be a threat to other humans, then of course, lock'em up. However, the sort of cruelty to animals as you describe, as loathsome as it may be, by its self, is not justification for denying the basic rights of freedom of any another human. I am not suggesting that a person should be free to do as he pleases, if it pleases him to crush the heads of kittens, but society has to deal with these sort of people in some other manner than the loss of their freedom. Perhaps there could be some sort of public record kept on such persons, and the animal shelters could do a background check, or something like that. Maybe you could work out the details. I think government locks up people for too many unjustifiable reasons, and that criminal record prevents them from ever re-establishing a productive life.

Please note that under the label “Objectivism” you will find in internet, including on this forum, a lot of claims which in fact have nothing to do with it. As you are new to Objectivism, you still cannot judge about what is what, so be very careful. It is quite easy to misunderstand a philosophy…
OK. And what did she mean? Do you have a reference? I mean a primary reference.
As I explained –and you did not address it - the appeal to the concept of a dept toward the victim is useless for your purpose. It is also dangerous, as I have mentionned. So no, sorry, I still do not think this is the Objectivism stand… unless you have a reference.
PS: If you are interested, I can recommend you some sources, including in Bucharest. You may write me a Personal Message: put the cursor on my name, select "Message".

Men are afraid that war might come because they know, consciously or subconsciously, that they have never rejected the doctrine which causes wars, which has caused the wars of the past and can do it again—the doctrine that it is right or practical or necessary for men to achieve their goals by means of physical force (by initiating the use of force against other men) and that some sort of "good" can justify it. It is the doctrine that force is a proper or unavoidable part of human existence and human societies.
— Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg. 35
Sometimes the distant beating of the war-drums, as read in the headlines of the news aggregates and resonating from their various news affiliates by the self-appointed modern-day medicine-men of the super-villages, can be heard setting a tempo for the march of Attila's henchmen to the battlefield—should they heed the call.
With the recent activity in Syria, a Russia warship and 150,000 Chinese military lining up outside the combat arena. How many of the archer's have pinch-drawn their weapons in anticipation? Conjure an image of Theoden in Helm's Deep just before he utters "And so it begins."
With this in mind, it was time to read The Roots of War again. Her mastery of the language leaped out in the opening line of the CUI quote. Men have never rejected the doctrine, i.e., men still accept the doctrine that force is a proper or unavoidable part of human existence and human societies.
Alas, for those that have rejected it, there are still those who have not.
A quick trip to Wookieepedia (The Star Wars Wiki) found that those on the Dark Side of The Force aptly drew their power from raw emotions and feelings (used as tools of cognition?). In reading The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell provides an encounter with Microprosopus. Perhaps J.R. Tolkien ran across another historic reference that served as inspiration for his 'Eye of Sauron'. (The lidless eye, and per Tolkien . . . that never sleeps.)
As she ended the paragraph previous to the one cited at the beginning of this post: "[W]ars have kept erupting throughout the centuries, like a long trail of blood underscoring mankind's history." I would have to add that the largest pools of blood in that underscore seem to be gathered where statism has been the most deeply entrenched.

As you are probably aware, Peikoff wrote an article on The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy included in ITOE, where he indicated the following:
The theory was originated, by implication, in the ancient world, with the views of Pythagoras and Plato, but it achieved real prominence and enduring influence only after its advocacy by such modem philosophers as Hobbes, Leibniz, Hume and Kant. (The theory was given its present name by Kant.)
According to a wikipedia entry on the Analytic-synthetic distinction, Frege and Carnap revise the Kantian definition touching base on the mathematical side. You can also add the logical positivists as being sympathetic to this view as well.
Peikoff further identifies:
Today, each man must be his own intellectual protector. In whatever guise the theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy confronts him, he must be able to detect it, to understand it, and to answer it. Only thus can he withstand the onslaught and remain epistemologically untouched.
More importantly he continues with:
The theory in question is not a philosophical primary; one's position on it, whether it be agreement or opposition, derives, in substantial part, from one's view of the nature of concepts.
Given the position that each man must be his own intellectual protector, there is merit in concurring with Rand in her article "For the New Intellectual":
Those who accept any part of Kant's philosophy—metaphysical, epistemological or moral—deserve it.
The law of identity, as well as a corollary found in the Crow Epistemology indicates that in his own intellectual defense he must be able to detect and understand it as a clear and present danger. If a man pulls a gun on you, it is relatively easy to detect and understand it as a clear and present danger.
In some martial arts, defense against guns and/or knives can be an adjunct to the training. There are techniques and approaches toward dealing with either. They go hand in hand along with the recognition that there are risks involved, dealing with either, that also need be taken into consideration.
It is interesting to note that Peikoff's Criticisms are listed (as of this posting date) on this same wikipedia entry as well.

According to a word document I put together just based on your comments in this thread, (including non-OOmember/referenced quotes) you've logged about 15,000 words, (14,964, to be precise by my count.)
Per the searchable CD-Rom, I know Rand (and Peikoff) has made many comments regarding Kant, and what she regarded as specific deficiencies, as well a psychological estimates of some of his tactics, the most relevant in the context of what I can make heads and tails of here coming from
The Ayn Rand Letter
Vol. III, No. 10  February 11, 1974
Philosophical Detection--Part II
Philosophical rationalizations are not always easy to detect. Some of them are so complex that an innocent man may be taken in and paralyzed by intellectual confusion. At their first encounter with modern philosophy, many people make the mistake of dropping it and running, with the thought: "I know it's false, but I can't prove it. I know something's wrong there, but I can't waste my time and effort trying to untangle it."
She goes on to point out:
Here is the danger of such a policy: you might forget all about Kant's "categories" and his "noumenal" world, but some day, under the pressure of facing some painfully difficult choice, when you feel tempted to evade the responsibility or to make a dishonest decision, when you need all of your inner strength, confidence and courage, you will find yourself thinking: "How do I know what's true? Nobody knows it. Nobody can be certain of anything." This is all Kant wanted of you.
A thinker like Kant does not want you to agree with him: all he wants is that you give him the benefit of the doubt. He knows that your own subconscious does the rest. What he dreads is your conscious mind: once you understand the meaning of his theories, they lose their power to threaten you, like a Halloween mask in bright sunlight.
Without going into the concretes here, I thought of this thread when reading the recently posted Reblogged:A Gush Gallop, especially with regard to the section on the Gish Gallop.
Who is your target audience here? The newbie to Ayn Rand's ideas, who comes here to find out more about her ideas? The more seasoned Ayn Rand reader, who has spent time studying her works in general, and perhaps has an area or two of more specialized interest? Or perhaps you're looking for an expert on Objectivism that can unravel what you are spring-boarding from your initial successful defense, in academia, of your Master's thesis on Objectivist rhetoric in America?
Or, more sinisterly, are you trying to thwart the newbie to Ayn Rand's ideas, or buffalo the more seasoned reader? With regard to the expert or more seasoned reader, I suspect you're mostly harmless. The seasoned reader is more likely to know what you are saying has issues, albeit they may not be able to pinpoint it precisely (I'll admit, I fall somewhat into this category.) It is the newbie that will look at what you have to say and be struck with "WTF", or perhaps "Maybe there is something here."

Welcome back, Ilya
It's always refreshing to view your multi-faceted concise and to-the-point interlocutions.

Or maybe run this theory by his parents, I bet they would have some input

Welcome back, Ilya
It's always refreshing to view your multi-faceted concise and to-the-point interlocutions.

Let us not forget one of the greatest, most virtuous, admirable and heroic characters which has ever been created, namely:
Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastián d'Anconia
He is one of the men Rand created which exemplify the aspects of the ideal, what a man can and should be.
This man speaks of his ancestors with pride and admiration, of deeds of Sebastián d'Anconia in the 1600s, how he was self-made, would not submit to the oppression of others, and how he built a fortune, legacy, and example to sustain his family and its heirs for generations.  Francisco's stories show Sebastián confidence in the love of his wife and the pride and confidence, a connection, with those who would come after him.
Francisco speaks of the successors of the great Sebastián d'Anconia, how they prided themselves and took it an honor to follow the examples of their ancestor's self-reliance, independence, and discipline. Each was inspired, raised, and wished to live up to his priors.
Francisco stated, not with embarrassment or criticism, but with solemn pride, a meaning too deep for the superficial or the crass, that before any man took over D'Anconia Copper he first had to prove himself worthy of the family name.
 
Ask whether or not Francisco finds meaning in family and why. Ask whether or not Rand portrayed this aspect of Francisco as a flaw or as an admirable passion of honorable solemn meaning.
 
Was Franciso or Rand irrational?  Was Francisco or Rand a tribalist?
 
I suggest anyone who is confused about the issue, re-read ATLAS SHRUGGED, and consider a true hero's sentiments about his family and ancestry.
 
THEN... by all means get back to me. 
 

Just to put this in perspective:
1 billion years is 1000 million years.
1 billion years ago no multicellular organisms existed (800 million is the estimate for when they arrived).
Mammals evolved into man over 65 million years (if we give them a start of about when the dinosaurs met their end)
Man split from other primates about 8 million years ago, when our common ancestor with the Chimpanzees lived.
Civilization is at most 12000 years old
The Industrial revolution and the renaissance are on the order of only 250 years old.
 
5 billion years is long enough for something as advanced as Man to evolve from a single celled animal 6 times.  Potentially you could destroy every multicellular organism on the planet, and something like man could emerge in 800 million years, you could do it again, and again ... all before the sun eats Earth.
If instead you chose only to kill off all advanced mammals (including man), conceivably it could take 65 million years to produce man or something equivalent.  So that could happen 77 times, over.  You could kill them all off, 77 times, right down to say rats.
If instead we killed off Mankind, its possible something as sophisticated as man could evolve from primates 625 times.
If we left man alive and only destroyed civilization, every trace of it, it could reappear almost 420 thousand times.  Finally we could reduce man to the pre-industrial pre-renaissance era a whopping 20 Million times.
Certainly there is no guarantee that if these catastrophic events occurred things would come back in the same time, then again sometimes it could be faster rather than slower...
 
On a more positive note, if there are no such catastrophes, Man will likely be capable of interstellar travel in less than 500 years.  Assuming we start making journeys then, we could:
Travel to and back from the nearest star system Alpha Centauri (about 4 light years away) - a total of 50 Million times (going at only ten percent the speed of light...)
Travel to and back from the interesting TRAPPIST-1 planetary system (about 40 light years away) - a total of 5 Million times
Travel to and back from the nearest star cluster Hyades (about 140 light years away) - about 1.4 million times
Go around the circumference of the Galaxy (about 300,000 light years) - about 666 times
Go to the Andromeda Galaxy and BACK again, 80 times IF it stayed at its current distance of 2.4 million light years. (speaking of which, since the Andromeda Galaxy is actually on a collision course with the Milky Way in 4 billion years... this number is a fiction... )
All of these assume we only achieve 10 percent the speed of light... which is VERY modest.
AND Who knows what we shall FIND or MAKE out there over the vast spans of space and time...
 
 
1.   Since taking truly catastrophic negative action of unimaginable magnitudes, including destruction of civilization, mankind, and even all forms of higher life, hardly directly ensures any outcome (positive or negative) 5 billion years from now, it makes little sense to argue that taking any token positive "action" now, could have any predictable result in 5 billion years.
2.   Since interstellar travel may be somewhat normal (assuming a positive future)  it is very possible many worlds having fully formed biospheres will exist in 5 billion years, in which case Earth might no longer be "central" to humanity or life.
 
 
 

ATLAS SHRUGGED: a First Time Reader’s Thoughts.
 
WARNING – CONTAINS SPOILERS!
 
I joined this forum in late 2015, having become intrigued by Ayn Rand from what I read on the internet, and then reading “The Voice of Reason” and “The Romantic Manifesto”. I then tackled “Atlas Shrugged”, and with all the other things in my life it took nearly a year to read it.
 
To clarify my perspective: I am not your typical “Atlas Shrugged” reader. I am an Englishman in my late 50s; I work for the National Health Service [NHS], the ultimate in socialised medicine, and for much of my life I have been a Christian and a socialist. The socialism started to crumble in my 30s when I realised that I valued individualism and heroic achievement too much, but altruism and politically correct liberalism are more deeply entrenched. My Christianity crumbled over the last fifteen years, primarily over the issue of human suffering vis-à-vis a supposedly all-loving and all-powerful God. So Objectivism offered an intriguing new perspective that in some ways struck a chord with me (remember that Ayn Rand is hardly known this side of the Atlantic, so it really was new to me).
 
The first thing to say is that Ayn Rand’s descriptions, of people, of nature, and of cities, are evocative and often lyrical and a masterful use of language. This is remarkable considering that English was not her first language, and that from what we see in film clips of her speaking, her speech was not as articulate as her writing. Her writing is a little less assured when it comes to dialogue and to action sequences (such as the last chapter where the main characters turn into something like the Three Musketeers and D’Artagnan). There is frequent and valid criticism that she should have allowed more editing; she makes the same points many times, and there are long discourses that interrupt the narrative. The tramp Jeff Allen launches into a ten-page account of the demise of the Twentieth-Century Motor Corporation  having just been at death’s door from starvation. It is scarcely conceivable that President Thompson and his team, let alone the rest of the nation, would have sat through more than the first few minutes of John Galt’s speech, let alone going from seeing him as their enemy to trying to force him to be their ruler. Would they have really have been dense enough not to see the contradiction there, and desperate enough to give up their own power? But none of this need detract from the book’s message. I treated those passages like the songs in a musical; you suspend notions of reality during the songs and return to the plot when they finish.
 
Rand’s choice of technology as a plot driver is interesting. In the 1950’s when the book was written, airlines rather than railroads were seen as the future. During that decade the USA had the most comprehensive system of domestic feeder-airlines that has any country has ever had or probably ever will have. Their story would have fitted in well with her themes: small entrepreneurs struggling to keep their airlines independent, but finding it impossible without government subsidy and then having to accept Federal regulations to stay in business. But AR is clearly not confident with aviation; her references to aircraft are usually somewhat vague, though her evocative description of the view during Dagny’s night flight suggests she may have flown as a passenger at night. In reality, Dagny wouldn’t have had time to learn to fly during the busiest period of her life, or survived an unintentional spin close to the ground in poor visibility (I have some experience as a pilot but have only experienced intentional spins). But Ayn Rand writes about what she knows and she is clearly inspired by railroads; she describes their workings in convincing detail and uses the locomotive as a metaphor for something with power and purpose. Her description of Dagny’s journey in the cab of the Taggart Comet is a superb piece of writing with plenty of detail, especially of the cab itself, and I wonder if AR had managed to have a journey in a diesel engine cab as part of her research. Her description of Hank Reardon’s steelworks is sufficiently atmospheric to suggest that she has visited one.
 
The heart of the book is her Objectivist political and moral philosophy. Does she overstate her case? She certainly repeats it many times. In the UK we think of the 1950s as the decade of the American Dream, of individualism rather than statism. Perhaps Americans have a different view. Certainly it was also the decade of McCarthyism. But there was a Republican Administration, under Eisenhower. Were things that bad? Was there ever anything at the time she was writing in the real world comparable to the “anti-dog-eat-dog” legislation? Even before America’s downfall in the book, the rest of the world are already People’s Republics. This sounds ridiculous, but in reality, Britain in the late 1940s was as near to being a Socialist state as it has ever been, though not of course a republic. Every major industry was nationalised. Medical care was nationalised as the NHS (which sounds socialist to Americans but we are still rather attached to it). And we gave the design of the most advanced jet engine in the world, the Rolls-Royce Nene, to the Russians: the Americans were less than happy when they found out, especially when it was used to power the MiG-15 that opposed them in Korea.
 
Jeff Allen’s description of the way in which people turned on each other like animals after the workers were given control of the Starnesville factory appears exaggerated, especially if what is being described is merely a social democratic, liberal society as most of Europe now is. It really isn’t that bad! On the other hand, the press in the UK occasionally carries stories of how delinquent children have allegedly been taken on foreign holidays at the taxpayers expense, or pregnant teenagers are automatically given their own flats. But the fact that these headlines are critical should give us hope. If, however AR is describing a Marxist utopia, then perhaps it would be as bad as she described; as for instance the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China. Certainly in the book, the imposition of Directive 10-289 sounds like a full-blown totalitarian take-over, but Fascist rather than Communist, given the alliance of business with government. But when we meet the dictator, Mr Thompson, he seems disappointingly colourless and indecisive (but then, how often have we met managers who make us wonder how they got their jobs?).
 
Has the tide is turned away from the socialism that AR feared? Under Reagan and Thatcher, there came about a greater degree of freedom for business. In the UK, the nationalised industries were sold off to private enterprise. The left has never accepted this and the debate continues, e.g. about whether the railways provided a better service when nationalised than now that they are privatised. The issue of a state health service is viewed very differently in the UK than the USA. Here, no government would survive taking away our free health service. This is the main area where I would compromise Objectivist principles: I do not believe that in a civilised society people should die from not being able to afford healthcare. In Atlas Shrugged, there is a passage dealing with the supposed evils of state controlled medication; the fear is that Doctors will be forced by the government to decide which patients die and which live; there is a similar chapter by Leonard Peikoff in The Voice of Reason. All I can say is that I work with Doctors in the NHS and they don’t seem particularly oppressed and powerless to me. The issue of funding the NHS is another matter. It isn’t really free of course; it is funded by taxpayers, whether they like it or not. But its debt is increasing and its service provision is decreasing unsustainably. There are howls of protest from the Left at any suggestion of wholesale privatisation. Certainly the government is increasingly selling certain functions to the private sector which then provides the care under government contract. I am prepared to apply Reason here, and say that if we do believe in a Health Service funded by the taxpayer rather than paid for by the directly by consumer, does it matter if some of it is provided by private health companies under contract to the government, rather than directly by the state-run service? There is a valid debate about which model is the most efficient. But the Left will not even consider more privatisation of the Health Service and this is clearly ideologically driven rather than derived from Reason.
 
AR’s attitude to violence has given many readers cause for concern. The most controversial passage is when Hank Rearden, normally portrayed as entirely honourable, threatens to hit his wife during their row when he leaves her. If the reader is expected to disapprove, this is not made clear. AR appears to be saying that Hank’s threat was acceptable because he was morally superior to Lilian. Even allowing for the difference between 1950s social attitudes and 21st century ones, it is hard to make excuses for this. (And yet, we are supposed to believe that Hank did not get in the least angry with Dagny when she left him for John Galt!). Some of this is an example of AR’s very black and white views of people that she either approves of or disapproves of. In the last chapter, Dagny shoots a terrified man in the back when she could have tied him up; the only justification being that he was a snivelling wimp. And every single passenger who died in the tunnel accident apparently deserved it, including the children. (It makes me feel the way I used to when I was a Christian and had to justify the genocide when Joshua’s Israelite army sacked Jericho). On the other hand, the language that AR uses when describing the horror of the sound-ray gun, the ultimate weapon, is reminiscent of the language used by CND about nuclear weapons. I wonder what AR thought about nuclear weapons? The military is never spoken of positively in Atlas Shrugged. (Incidentally: Ragnar Danneskjold – where was the US Navy?).
 
The concept of all the independently minded geniuses and wealth-creators removing themselves from the economy was an original thought at the time. But leaving their responsibilities raises many questions. It foresees the “turn-on, tune-in and drop-out” of Timothy Leary’s hippy culture but predates it by over ten years. In some ways the values of Woodstock and the values of Galt’s Gulch are diametrically opposed, but if we see the hippies as irresponsible, then how are Ellis Wyatt, Francisco D’Anconia et al also not irresponsible? The Objectivist answer would be about not allowing their talents to be exploited by Government, though what the hippies would have said would have been not dissimilar. But did they need to also destroy the means of producing their commodities – Wyatt’s Torch? I understand that AR herself described the whole concept as a plot device, so maybe we are not meant to scrutinise the plot, as distinct from the philosophy, too closely. It certainly makes the point that wealth is not created by labour alone. But the community in Colorado seems a little too cosy to be true. One wonders how they would have coped with dissent between their members, especially considering how badly the Objectivist movement coped with it from the 60’s onwards.
 
So what difference has the book made to my life and am I an Objectivist? I don’t know how many total sceptics have read the book and been converted. When I decided to read it, I was at least sympathetic to its ideals of reason, freedom and human achievement. Several times at work since, I have pulled back from using phrases such as “perhaps we should….”, or “I wonder if…” in emails, and used the kind of more assertive phrase that Dagny would have approved of. And I am less likely to have a negative or cynical reaction when I see someone in a very expensive car; I am now more likely to assume that are entitled to it because they work hard and take financial risks. I was annoyed when BBC Radio broadcast a series on Andrew Carnegie, JD Rockefeller etc titled “The Robber Barons”. I didn’t have time to listen to the programmes but the title didn’t bode well for their impartiality. But I cannot go as far as AR would on state medicine and social care. A civilised society cannot let people die in the streets, even if that means taxing some people against their will. If you are going to apply Reason to an argument, you have to define your framework, and what is Reasonable must be informed by human decency and compassion. AR was not an anarchist. On the other hand, as I observed above, the country cannot afford to fund all the demands on the NHS, any more than the US could afford Obamacare. I hope that medicine can continue to be free at the point of use, but I am more open than most of my colleagues to at least consider funding private companies to provide the care.
 
I disagree with the premise that there is always a right and a wrong and the middle-ground is always evil. For instance, if the two extremes are of dictatorship and anarchy, then the middle ground is more nearly right. I try to be more open-minded about Donald Trump than most of my compatriots, though I read that even Alan Greenspan has said that he did not vote for either presidential candidate. Is Trump an Objectivist? He appears to be far too interventionist. Perhaps he is an Orren Boyle rather than a Hank Rearden. It is a weakness of the book that Hank is the only industrialist to have started off poor and so illustrate the book’s premise that anyone can get rich by hard work and using their brain: Dagny and Francisco had inherited wealth.  Those in our time who are closer to AR’s vision are such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Jimmy Wales, Richard Branson.
 
John Galt says in his speech that the vilest form of self-abasement is to subordinate your mind to the mind of another. I followed world-views unthinkingly in the past and am not going to do so again. As soon as I say “I am an Objectivist, and that means I agree with all that Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff etc say without criticsm”, I stop being an Objectivist because I have surrendered my critical faculties once again. But if asked am I sympathetic to Objectivism and its ideals, and has it informed my thinking to a considerable degree, then my answer is yes.
 
Adrian Roberts
February 2017
 
 

Dustin, I wasn't asking if any of your questions/objections in this thread alone you considered to be answered/resolved, I was asking about if you considered that to be the case of *any* of your questions/objections you have raised on this forum in general.
Also, you have in your post there stated your position, but you have not addressed anything any of us have already said to you here about why we contend such a position is incorrect.
You didn't answer my question either about what sources, aside from this forum, you have on Objectivism, or even point me to a place where you already answered that question (which also would have been perfectly acceptable). When I said, "You've made lots of threads here based on questions/objections to Objectivism " - I didn't mean that as an accusation, like it was an inherently bad thing that just should not be done. I was stating it because it was relevant to my later question, asking what, if any, sources you had aside from this forum on Objectivism. Asking this many questions isn't a bad thing necessarily, but it does makes me suspect that you may be attempting to approach learning about or "challenging" this philosophy very badly. You may be jumping into the middle of this philosophy and going about it all higgledy piggledy, not looking into the well made primary or even secondary sources on it that answer the whats and whys pretty thoroughly and systematically. You may instead be asking people to not just reinvent the wheel for you, but reinvent the rocket ship, knowing almost nothing about rockets already yourself, and that they do so random piece by piece with you showing little interest in actually seeing how the pieces fit together and why, or maybe even seeing all the pieces, just seeing how these individual parts aren't making sense to you at first glance and on their own and then saying "This makes no sense! It's all bullshit! No way this thing gets off the ground." This seems like a bad way for you to learn about Objectivism and an even worse way to try to convince anybody who knows Objectivism well that it is incorrect. It's also hugely inefficient on time involved doing it the messy way versus going to the primary or even secondary sources.
As for "echo chambers" and "safe spaces" -- you realize, don't you, that with Objectivists being such a teeny, tiny percentage of the population, we all spend our lives immersed constantly in people and products of contrary beliefs, right? This forum is just one of the few places where we come together with people that DO share our support of this philosophy so that we can actually get some where furthering our discussions of the subject beyond constantly just going over the basics with people who think the philosophy is flat out incorrect, just endlessly rehashing the same basic issues over and over that are already old hat to us, never touching any further or new material. We don't need to have this forum bombarded with people who disagree with us in order to be exposed to other beliefs and the possibility that we are wrong because we already inevitably face those things all the time everywhere else we go pretty much. Our goal here on this forum isn't to *never* be exposed to contrary ideas(something the forum couldn't possibly achieve anyway), its to just have somewhere that actually is about our ideas in the midst of aaaaaaaaaaaaaall the rest that we are exposed to which isn't. And we already do believe in reexaming our own beliefs if ever we come across something which seems to flout them anyway. Having this forum to discuss Objectivism with mostly people who support it is like having a forum for fans of bag pipe music in a world where pretty much everybody hates bag pipe music.

The most important purpose a transcontinental border wall would serve is to meet the desires and expectations of the American electorate. Regardless of any conversation about the popular vote versus the legitimacy of President Trump, it has been my experience that the Americans who voted for Trump want that wall. It has nothing to do with economic or security benefits; it's a matter of democracy. Trump supporters were gleeful at the thought of the wall. Now, as the fog of campaign rhetoric is lifting, and these people are becoming slightly more aware of the fact that this wall will be one more expensive boondoggle for the taxpayers to bear, they continue to cling to the vision. Will the wall and Trump's other isolationist policies lead to economic and security disaster? They don't care: Build the wall. It will make them feel better.
Here's a fantasy, although not so crazy: A fortification rivaling the Maginot Line and the Chinese Great Wall spans the roughly 1,954 miles of America's southern border. It does exactly that which it was designed to do. The cost of building, maintenance, and staffing it with troops exceeds anything our budgets could sustain. It would make a perfectly good tourist site; visitors from China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia could have their pictures taken while posing atop or in front of the wall brandishing the Trump logo. The heirs of the Trump dynasty would own and operate the hotels and casinos that punctuates the serpentine structure. As our descendants revert to savagery as a means of survival, they can sit around the campfires, and tell their children of the once powerful American Empire, and how the second coming of the Trump-King will once again make America Great!

Is it an absurdity? Perhaps it is. Though if you had asked me a few years ago about Trump being elected President of the United States (let alone given the campaign he ran), I think I would have described that as an "absurdity," too. These are rather absurd times.
As I've said, I think we have to have war somewhere. I think Trump's demeanor alone demands it, and in the course of "Making America Great Again," you know, he'll want us to flex our muscles. So where will it be? Mexico seems nearly as likely to me as anything else, given the rhetoric and policy goals that Trump's employed throughout his campaign and in his early administration.
Is war with Mexico guaranteed? No. Though as I said, I fully expect military involvement in Mexico. Given Trump's approach, I'd expect that relations with America will become the hot button topic in Mexican politics over the next few years, and with trade agreements crumbling and increased tariffs and such, perhaps their economy suffers, too. The sum total could be quite destabilizing (though maybe I'm too ignorant of Mexican politics to comment on that), and -- who knows? -- maybe we'll be inspired to send a "peace-keeping force."
Or do you think it's absurd that the US would become militarily involved in Latin American affairs at all? Are you familiar with our history in that region? (Some of which is not all that old.)
All prognostication is fraught, naturally. I could direct you to quotes in this very forum about how Trump would not win the Presidency (and some older than that, guaranteeing Romney's win and such); knowing that A is A does not give one any particular insight into such complicated futures, though it does seem to inspire an undue level of certainty in our predictions. But working with what I have (which includes a decent, if not extensive, knowledge of history; and observing Trump over these last several months), I'm inclined to believe that many things we've considered "absurd" over the last few decades are going to become our new reality.

The most important purpose a transcontinental border wall would serve is to meet the desires and expectations of the American electorate. Regardless of any conversation about the popular vote versus the legitimacy of President Trump, it has been my experience that the Americans who voted for Trump want that wall. It has nothing to do with economic or security benefits; it's a matter of democracy. Trump supporters were gleeful at the thought of the wall. Now, as the fog of campaign rhetoric is lifting, and these people are becoming slightly more aware of the fact that this wall will be one more expensive boondoggle for the taxpayers to bear, they continue to cling to the vision. Will the wall and Trump's other isolationist policies lead to economic and security disaster? They don't care: Build the wall. It will make them feel better.
Here's a fantasy, although not so crazy: A fortification rivaling the Maginot Line and the Chinese Great Wall spans the roughly 1,954 miles of America's southern border. It does exactly that which it was designed to do. The cost of building, maintenance, and staffing it with troops exceeds anything our budgets could sustain. It would make a perfectly good tourist site; visitors from China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia could have their pictures taken while posing atop or in front of the wall brandishing the Trump logo. The heirs of the Trump dynasty would own and operate the hotels and casinos that punctuates the serpentine structure. As our descendants revert to savagery as a means of survival, they can sit around the campfires, and tell their children of the once powerful American Empire, and how the second coming of the Trump-King will once again make America Great!