Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Craig24 last won the day on July 14

Craig24 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Craig24

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/19/65

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

4528 profile views
  1. Give me an example of moderating the message. Pretend I'm one of those half rational half altruistic pragmatists and you want to persuade me of the virtue of selfishness. What would you say to me? I'll start the dialogue: me: Why should I be selfish in principle? Won't this hurt others?
  2. Why is not being compelling a flaw?
  3. Is it a flaw because Objectivism is factually incorrect 20% of the time -- or -- is it a flaw because these semi-altruists/looters/moochers will disagree with it 20% of the time?
  4. Do you think there's a flaw? What is it? What should we do about it?
  5. Did Castile keep his hands on the wheel and ask the cop to reach for his license or ask the cop what to do next after informing him of the gun? That's what I suggested he should have done to be 100% safe.
  6. If you say you have a gun and keep reaching for your license, the cop has a reason to suspect you are reaching for your gun. If it was me, I would keep my hands on the steering wheel and tell the cop to reach in my pocket for the license. Everyone is 100% safer that way.
  7. A National Review article on the Philando Castile Case. David French disagrees with the verdict.
  8. Is that what he's asserting? I'm actually somewhat confused. If you want, I can quote your post to him at his blog and ask him to clarify his point. Or you can go to his blog and ask him yourself. Either way replying to him here doesn't do any good since he doesn't participate in discussions at this forum.
  9. About 5 years ago, Steven Farron wrote an essay in Liberty titled Defending Capitalism against Ayn Rand. Contemplate this for a moment. He thinks Ayn Rand, in some sense, was anti-capitalist even though she explicitly promoted and defended capitalism. In the essay he writes: “She thought that the heroes she created were exemplars of pure, uncorrupted capitalism. In fact, the heroes she created in Atlas Shrugged came from her sense of life, which was not only un-capitalist but anti-capitalist.” That’s a head scratcher. He continues: “In Atlas Shrugged, Rand created heroes who embodied her sense of life and described how such heroes would fulfill their heroic natures if they engaged in economic activities. She thought that the sum of their economic activities and interactions provides a template of what laissez-faire capitalism would look like. She was wrong. When the heroes who embody her sense of life engage in economic activities, they function like Communist administrators, not capitalist businessmen.” Her heroes function like Communist administrators in what way? Farron continues: “To paraphrase Rand, “Grandeur is the one word that names” the sense of life of Communist economies. They had no concern with anything “penny ante.” … The heroes of Atlas Shrugged are heroic because, like Communist bureaucrats, they produce or maintain impressive products, not mean little ones. It would be unimaginable for a Rand hero to be a manufacturer of “penny ante” products, such as disposable baby diapers, menstrual tampons, or dependable contraceptives. But these distinctively 20th-century inventions improved the quality of life immeasurably by freeing people from preoccupation with brute, animal existence.” Farron is saying that what makes you anti-capitalist is a grandiose preoccupation with the heroic struggle to create impressive products, not mean little ones. When Galt invents his motor he is being anti-capitalist because his motor is so much more impressive than a tampon. Wrap your head around that one. Capitalism is the system of individual rights. The essence of capitalism is the banning of coercion in human relationships. Under capitalism you deal with others by persuasion and trade, not force and fraud. Now what part of inventing an impressive motor instead of a tampon consists of promoting or using force? Galt, Hank Rearden, Francisco D’anconia, Ellis Wyatt and Dagny Taggart do not promote or use force by being grandiose or impressively productive and Farron has to know that. So what the **** is he really trying to do in this essay?
  10. It contains "mystic muck"? That's all she said? Well that's interesting. Do you know about Indian mysticism?
  11. How do you know that Ayn Rand did not undertand Indian mysticism?
  12. Why would I do that? You are the one asserting that Objectivists don't understand the views of mystics/subjectivists. You need to prove it.
  13. Do you understand what the mystics and subjectivists are saying? Can you summarize some of their views and show us how Objectivists don't understand those views?
  14. Ed Powell's paper against open borders

    You are very welcome.
  15. Objectivist Ed Powell has written a paper against the open borders immigration position of other Objectivists (Binswanger, Tracinski, Biddle, Bernstein, Duke). This raises the question: Does a foreigner have a right to cross an international border? Powell says no. Powell says the burden of proof that any applicant for entry is not a threat to the freedom or security of the country lies with the applicant. The paper is well written, the position well argued. For reference: Binswanger's essay and Biddle's essay