Easy Truth

Well, Okay. At that time it would have had a lot of bad consequences for her to admit anything like that. (I don't want to get side tracked on the word "affair" but I do wonder why you have a problem with it).

LOL!

No, not in general. In fact Islamic ideology is threatening to us by those "people" who interpret it as a justification for aggression (initiation of force). Similar to Communists who will terrorize vs. those who just vote. Any religion can be weaponized like the Catholic Irish republican Army. There are 1.2 billion people who identify themselves as Islamic. If they were all dangerous, we should have far more incidents than we do. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were different in their interpretation in that the Taliban did not believe in striking beyond their border. While Al Qaeda does (9/11). For instance look at Azerbaijan. The same religion, same Islamic sect as Iran. Yet in their war with a Christian country, Armenia, Iran did not support this Islamic country. In fact it was Israel who supported this Islamic country in the war which they recently won. It's just not as simple as ideology.

Branden's loss was huge. It was an intense emotional experience for her. In her small circle she was very frequently dictatorial. It is in plain view in the Donahue interview. Someone else will have to name each person that was kicked out and the history of excommunications. (which Peikoff continued with that behavior) A pattern of irrational behavior is not due to a consistent every moment heat of emotions. There are periods that one is not thinking about the (intense) issue so you can be rational. It can also be repressed where one cannot think clearly about it by choice. Branden discovered the physiological characteristics of a certain kind of evasion (how we all do it). And that is at the core of our disagreement and ironically of Branden's warnings about the hazards. As if "It's so simple". Kind of like when Rearden found out about Dagny and Galt. No big deal. "It is how it should be", not the way it usually is. And as I said Rand was human. She has every right to react the way she did. There was also the period, the culture. A woman of her age could not easily say yes we had an affair. On the whole that would be irrational based on today's culture but she did what she had to do and I don't fault her for that. But if you go with your perfectly ethical model, she fell very short of it. I also suspect you are too young to have heard Peikoffs defense of smoking as it is not in his course anymore. Keep in mind, I am not excusing Branden's behavior. Just that he is not a worthless criminal.

But what is the difference between religious or social variant of primacy of consciousness? Is one secular vs. the other? Because one way or the other it's going end up mystical.

Right, this seems like the obvious solution to me, and I’ve been left baffled by the libertarian and Objectivist controversy over how to respond to Covid. At the very least, it does the bulk of the heavy lifting. Do you know of any prominent Objectivists who have argued along these lines? What exactly is the "libertarian and Objectivist" position on how to respond? Currently everyone has that disclaimer. That's why the government is able to achieve its power grab.

We are withdrawing from a violent confrontation from an enemy who does not believe in turning the other cheek. Having said that, the issue of "people" is important because religion in practice is about "the interpretation of the ideas by the people". Most likely there are going to be factions in Afghanistan and there will be internal conflict that will cause many deaths. It's not entirely based on a particular ideology. The most important issue to worry about is if we as a nation, are better off against Al Qaeda or not.

Thanks, I have a better understanding of why you think what you think. It makes sense. I would have come to the same conclusion. But I do believe that her wrath existed. I had seen the Donahue interview. I was seeing the series of excommunications. The authoritarian personality of Rand clearly existed and it is very unfortunate because it taints her legacy and message. It was not just Branden that was kicked out. Many people were kicked out for smaller things. Branden understood Objectivistivism. A person who has that understanding will be awestruck by it's intellectual integrity. That goes for Branden too. Any conflicted-ness would have to include that too. One lives with one self and when abrogating a beautiful ethical system that gives meaning to their life, there will be inner turmoil. You seem to believe that we, at any moment, can apply reason. As if emotions don't exist or they can be suppressed at any time. That emotions can't overwhelm a person. That we can't be blinded in highly emotional periods. Branden went into this issue extensively and examined it. He brought up the issue of repression as a key component in causing irrationality. I assume you don't think that "repression" is prevalent in Objectivists as a coping mechanism. We, at any moment, are not in control of all of our behaviors. How many Objectivists are smokers even though they know the effects. Are there some who don't manage their money properly? I know many that are messy. Are they moral degenerates too? Branden was not perfect (even though he was portrayed to be in Barbara's initial book). And for Rand to love him so much as to dedicate her greatest work to him and to be so deeply hurt would make sense. She can't be expected to have remained rational in face of something like that. We're all human.

What is "the natural aristocracy"?

So not losing his leadership status ... is not power lust. Then let me rephrase it: Do you think his main motive was power-lust and losing his leadership status in the movement. As in, that was the only thing he was conflicted about.

You'd have to be clear about what the right and the left means in this thread. Pulling out of Afghanistan was a priority for the previous administration too.

That's how he described himself at the time he had formed the plan to manipulate Rand into accepting Patrecia and getting her to tell him that age had become an insurmountable barrier. Frankly this sounds more like a sociopathic self than a survivor self. But, in the end, it is his excuse, or one of them. It seems you believe what he says. But what is striking is that you think a sociopath could offer such insight into his psyche. A sociopath would be lying about this. There and elsewhere he tried to make the case that he felt trapped in the relationship, like an animal in a cage. So he mistreated Rand because he felt trapped by her or because he needed time to manipulate her to his secret viewpoint, or perhaps some combination of both factors. In either case I don't think it's the excuse of a reasonable man. I believe he was attempting to rationalize his powerlust. Ultimately Rand saw through his BS. He could be using it as an excuse. Or it could be your interpretation. Is there any indication of him asking the reader to "ignore what I did", "ignore the ugliness I created" or "ignore that ugliness what lurks within me"? He's telling you what he did and how it happens i.e. how it can happen. He is admitting his faults. He is coming clean. If the ultimate motive would have been power lust, why not keep Patricia a secret? That is the most efficient way to achieve power. Or just tell her to put up or shut up if he had that much power in the relationship. Furthermore if he exerted such power, she could never react to the BS as you say. It looks much more like just a relationship. It doesn't work for one person and what doesn't work for that person won't work for the other person. And they have to break up. If the recriminations indicated sociopathic behavior most couples' in the world are sociopaths. I am assuming that you believe he was solely motivated by power lust. Like she was just a toy to her. As in he never loved her in any way. If so why was he conflicted about it? A sociopath would not care how she felt. Now, there is another part of this issue that is not being discussed. Other than Rand, what about the moral standing of Leonard, and the rest. What is the position of ARI on this matter? Have they admitted it happened? Especially Binzwanger.

What the context? Is it a five year old punching a man? Voluntary or not? Are there any safety measures? That's why I brought up the issue of collision not related to "force" in this context. Although, you have a point in that "force" is a bad choice of words.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Depends on what you mean by excuse. Marriage and Family Therapists see this type of thing all the time. It's pretty normal. Most endings to relationships are messy.

Preventing by any means. The issue is preventing (survival qua man) of another man's survival "non defensively" i.e. initiating the prevention. According or based on the nature of a human being.

Before I can move on, can you please elaborate on this? Who is giving away their right to claim damages and why?

I will grant you that the entire US medical system is a racket (not free market). I will also grant you that it does abrogate the protection of individual rights. But you seem to be attacking anything and everything that comes out of them.

There are rights you are born with and then there are rights that are contractual. The right "not to be murdered" is not the same time as "the right to your car". You can trade your car but not your life. The fact that you own your life is not contractual.

Force in this context is not a collision of objects. Fraud and theft are not a collision of something against your body. Involuntary, meaning (not by accident) but being force by another person is the issue. Not being forced by a tsunami or your hunger. It is "preventing" another from pursuing their life as they would see fit if when they are unfettered by you. (and the same goes for them)

Suicide is your right (one that does not affect others). Assisted suicide may not be depending on how it is done.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you arguing that there is no way to be sure that Covid can kill? That there would be no difference if Covid existed or did not?

It's related, but most importantly, negligence is an indication of the choice to NOT obtain or abide by such facts. If there is no way to get the facts then you can't be negligent/responsible. It is also related to survival. If you do NOT give any thought to consequences ... there will be consequences.

A person who needs to be forcibly quarantined does not necessarily have sinister motives. Sinister motives could initiate force but somehow you gloss over negligence.

One can blame an individual who is in fact determined to be "the initiator of force". But you seem to be arguing for a collectivist point of view that Covid is "the people" initiating it (and therefore blameless).

Boxing is not an initiation of force. It is not an agreement to allow violation of your rights. You seem to be equating an agreement that has risk involved as always being a violation of your rights.