StrictlyLogical

Respectfully I disagree. Necrove made an assertion that something was "bad" news. In all contexts the "good" must be carefully considered, and especially in the complexities of the context of a quasi-enforced State regime. Where everyone involved is enslaved to an institution it's already bad, when changes are made to that system it can get better or worse (still bad). To whom in the context is some change in a thing "good" or "bad"? I submit it depends on how one's individual rights are affected. Properly: No one has a right to education, or a proper education. No one has a right to anyone else and certainly not complete strangers, having an education, or a proper education. No one has a right to teach a captive audience in a State run context whatever you want, in fact no one has a right to teach whatever you want in any privately run context (unless you own the institution yourself)... your boss (if it is not you) will quickly let you know that. Parents and their children, however, have a right not to be harmed, not to be subjected to indoctrination, or sexualization (at an inappropriate age), not to be misled with extremely dangerous concepts beyond their ability to truly grasp, not to be turned into little Marxists, not to undergo permanent life altering surgery until they have the conceptual capacity and responsibility to make that decision which only comes in adulthood... etc. Now, parents and children are effectively forced to play in a State regime of education, but they are the one's whose rights are potentially and in some cases actually violated. Unfortunately, sometimes people who are not in the position to experience the violation of those rights do not fully understand the situation. This you no doubt have experienced throughout your life as well. My question "Are you a parent" is precisely on point. Particularly given the complexity of the issue and the sheer under-reporting by mainstream media of just how bad schools and teachers colleges have become ... they are rife with Marxist and socialist ideology. Parents experience these trends on their children first hand. As for "Circumstantial ad hominem", in some contexts I can see how that would apply, I am certainly not saying that any non-parent's reasons are incorrect because they are non-parents, AND I am not stating non-parents could not form logical positions had they the full information parents do, I am of the belief that in many cases, non-parents do not have the information that many parents do. The technicalities of the law may be awkward, and possibly could be disproportionate, but I think the current reports by progressive media are overstated, and/or some school boards are over-reacting. Overall, as a first step this is good news. Children CANNOT be subject to the whim of every possible kind of teacher, who more and more might include radically Marxist or sexual-activist views... we can only hope in an invalid mixed enforced State system, semi-sane guidelines are provided within that system to educate (not indoctrinate) children appropriately.

I agree. If it were about you, you would be a parent with a child in school. Individuals acting as agents of the state are not free agents able to do whatever their fancy tells them.. nor in the presence of naive impressionable children should they be allowed to. Dereliction of their duty which causes harm violates your rights as a parent and your child's rights.

First, I would say that a public education system is ab initio invalid. Any proper education is voluntary and hence not part of any State or Government system. Like so many other things there should be separation of State and education. Now in a mixed system we find ourselves in, IF one could truly opt out, i.e. get a 100% refund on any and all taxes/fees the public systems takes, one could enroll one's own children in a private school or otherwise educate one's child independent of any State intervention. In a private arrangement the parent has the right to remove the child from any school/tutor and schools/tutors offering services would have standards about what they would expose the child to, and there would have to be agreement. Voluntary systems would have free reign politically and religiously and in every respect as long as they do not violate the individual rights of the child or parents. SINCE most jurisdictions do not allow this, parents are chained... restricted to either use the public system or pay twice (once in taxes for the system and once again for actual education). IF a parent uses the system, in which they cannot (generally) voluntarily shop around for different teachers, or different schools (geography is limited), that parent MUST rely on the powers that be to ensure proper and appropriate education of the child. A State body must be held accountable to the parents, and if individual agents of the State are abusing or misusing their position to indoctrinate or groom children, with Marxist or oversexualizing/inappropriate materials for a children of a certain age, then those parents are owed a duty to remove those materials and those teachers and ensure it does not happen again. If you think "teachers" on average as individuals who have gone through teachers college would be best to provide whatever education they deem fit to your kids I would think again... and do some research about what is accepted at most teachers colleges and licensing bodies, politically, morally, and epistemologically... In a State run system there are generally laws and regulations to ensure the system works as intended, and if the unions, licensing bodies, and colleges and individual teachers are getting out of hand... something has to be done. EDIT: Again, much of this comes down to whether the law purports to restrict the actions of private entities or whether it is enacted to apply to State Institutions i.e. Public Schools funded by taxpayer money. Update: From what I can tell the law only applies to public schools. This is not bad news, but an attempt to hold government accountable and responsible.

Does the law apply to private schools or only public schools? In a mixed economy State run education system, should there be no standards or monitoring of what is being made available to students of any age? Do you have children?

Know thyself.

One reason why I am concerned with proper scope of a maxim, or formulation of a principle, or definition of a virtue, is because it is so easy to undermine the propriety of the maxim, principle, or virtue when so called exceptions are required. Better to have it more properly defined, than defined overbroadly so as to exceed its proper scope. Such comes up in a conceptually similar manner in the realm of Free Speech... how it is to be defined and conceived of... and Tara Smith does an excellent job arguing for Free Speech being absolute and with no exceptions when conceived of in its proper "domain". I would say then "Free Speech" is just label for something which has as an essential of its definition a prescription of that proper domain, in which it is absolute and for which there are no exceptions. The problem with the idea of "exceptions" is that it implies or allows erosion of the boundary of the proper domain, and works to subvert the absolute into the subjective. So similarly, with virtues, maxims, or principles... if one overly inflates the definition of applicability, misdefines their proper domain, they become open to the attack (quite valid ones) of "exceptions", when in fact, when properly defined, they would be much more stronger as virtues, maxims, or principles.

I wonder did Kant ever address the scope or context or breadth of a maxim's starting point? More specifically, how and where to choose on the ladder of abstraction a maxim to be tested and why did he insist on holding onto such a conceptually broad maxim re. "lying" as such instead of, for example, "stating falsehoods to innocent persons for unjust gain to self or harm to others"? This scope of application (due to where the maxim lies on the ladder of abstractions) is truly independent of the moral force with which one brings to the chosen maxim, only the metes and bounds of the domain of its absolute authority is defined by the scope (i.e. the context of specifics with which it is defined). Once those metes and bounds are understood the test for whether it is a valid maxim could presumably be applied. The scope of a maxim such as "do not move your arm towards another" clearly is conceptually too broad to require it or to forbid it... why did he not see this is also true for "lying" simpliciter? The entire exercise seems doomed unless one is careful with precisely defining a clearly delimited maxim.

It think it tends to encourage a false dichotomy to claim that honestly (in the context of communication and not introspection) is something you either do for yourself or for the sake of others. This has been a sort of cultural and social undercurrent when pondering truth telling to others. It's very similar to the false dichotomy introduced in economics which asserts every transaction has a winner and a loser... that commerce is predation. We already know this is an incorrect assessment of commerce, and that wealth can be created (for both) according to a trader principle. Applying a transactional trader principle view to honesty in communicative contexts, helps to dissolve the false dichotomy. Mutual benefit can be built on voluntary intercourse. No one has to lose, and in fact you can choose when to transact and with whom.

In my book, public representatives should 1. never profit from holding Office in any way other than perhaps the same benefits everyone enjoys by virtue of the correct administration of a proper government, the upholding of the Constitution, rule of law, etc. 2. never hold any public position for more than 2 terms. Those who "need" a salary should be given one which is no more than the lesser of 1 the average of what they had earned as salary in the private sector over the past 5 years. 2 some cap which limits the salary to a reasonable recompense for public service. In the grand scheme of things, I tend to trust politicians who appear not to have profited from their time in office, or from their having held a position in office, from deals made in office, or from lectures tours, books etc. which are possible only because of the notoriety of holding office rather than any other substantive reason, or any success they had pre-politics. There seems to be a class of politician who is and has achieved nothing in the real world, but who personally gains a vastly proportionally larger sum of wealth by virtue only of their having gone into politics and what they have "done" in connection therewith, verses others in politics, who seem more interested in serving the people, and protecting their rights, and afterward getting back to real life.

Wasn't that Hunter Biden Laptop thing ALL a Russian Hoax, probably linked to that Trump - Russian collusion thing (remember something about a dossier)? I coulda sworn I heard, from cross-your heart-its-true Government Officials and Media Outlets... whom I believe unerringly, who said at the time that it was Runnian dis... mis.. cis information or something. Yeah and don't we have a new Ministry of Truth now, can't they clear it up for us? - Eager to be told what to believe and to accept it as truth - SL

CNN lol... "gaping holes left by government" anti-conceptual from the start. What about the ongoing gaping holes left by Govt in western democracies like... TVs, computers, groceries, haircuts, books,... Govt should provide these and everything else.... so many gaping holes. get with the times CNN!!

Jeanne Calment purportedly lived for 122 years and 164 days and was mentally sharp until the end of her life in 1997. Having been born on Feb. 2, 1905, if Ayn Rand were to have lived as long as Jeanne, she would have been alive today and expected to live until sometime in 2027. Rand was known for being outspoken, and even considered extreme in the relatively free and capitalist world of the 70s and 80s. Today, such things as: ecoterrorism, oligarchs, domestic terrorism, social networks, crypto, ESG, WEF, "owning nothing and being happy", "eating ze bugs", lockdowns, global bioweapons, moves to seize farmland, mRNA vaccines, voter fraud, more and more tyranny/authoritarianism in western government, attacks on free speech, attacks on fossil fuels, BLM, antifa, woke, cancel culture, freezing bank accounts, weaponization of the judicial system, rolling blackouts, lurch towards communism in America, TikTok, etc etc. were hardly imaginable. What would Rand think of the many things arising seemingly all at once? What would she conclude and integrate as their causes? What would she SAY and advocate? How strong and compelling would her voice have been, yes indeed. IMHO She would have a field day with so many of the things out there now, and she would be so much braver and bolder, and yes true to form, more shocking to the average soy leftist, than any of the current mealy mouthed co-called representatives of her legacy, from whom we hear nothing but intermittent tentative mouse-like squeeks while the world burns.

I should point out Alex Epstein is not active in the health fields, he is pushing back on the tide of ecoterrorism (in the guise of science and government "taking care of us") attempting to hold the people of the world hostage.

I wonder how a proper Objectivist would report on the data, but I propose the following: It would be 100% fact based, no shred of anything for a. personal financial gain b. political gain c. institutional or political reputation or d. with the intent to cajole or persuade people to any so called desired behavior i.e. no social engineering of sentiment or action of any kind. It would look at medical interactions in society from the individual's perspective, and individual rights, the individual's freedom, health, and very lives. This is in many senses opposite to the so-called "public good" of public health approaches. I.e. the data would be looked at in the sense of treating individuals, how individual people fared, their health, their freedoms, their mental well being etc. not merely the so-called health of a collective... using who knows what as statistical standards. A herd which is "treated" and "managed" be said to be more healthy, even when enslaved, or if part of the heard are disadvantaged or sacrificed (culled) for the sake of the collective whole. Herd mentality is not how an Objectivist would think of it or deal with it. Sacrifice of the innocent for NO MATTER HOW MANY other individuals IS EVIL. Lives saved? I wonder if anyone has done the analysis thusly: How many people under the age of 50, how many CHILDREN would have died or suffered irreparably educationally, physically, mentally, had nothing been done, no vaccines, no imprisonment, no mandates, no muzzling. Then how many were affected because of the measures taken. Then doing the same for people over the age of 50, no measures... versus measures taken. I wonder whether in the end, in the pursuit of sheer numbers of "survivors", many of the young with their whole lives ahead of them have been brought low and in some cases died for no good reason. That whole lives were sacrificed on the altar of public good in return for survivability of the very old, good numbers, and political and institutional reputation. I have said it before, if you ask your doctor whether any proposed action is better for yourself (or your child) PERSONALLY, given all possible benefit and risks, and he/she hesitates or looks confused... THAT is no doctor, that is an agent of the State who has forsaken the sacred duty to treat you PERSONALLY for your benefit, for your life and health... and you should find yourself a new doctor as fast as possible. You see, no matter how mundane and saccharine and academically philosophical the trolley problem seems, its purported utilitarian or arithmetical solution we now see in full. For the herd, all that really matters are the numbers, whether one arrived at it by sacrificing innocents is beside the fact... the so-called public good has nothing to do with individuals... the greatest "number" of survivors. I believe Rand solved the "trolley problem" with the idea of every person being an end in himself, which already requires no purposeful act to cause the sacrifice of anyone, much less children, who knew no better, some of whom (those so called "rare" few) died because of it. Public health is inimical to individual rights and is an evil, as evil as any of the other proposed Globalist, centrally planned erosions of our freedoms, or what is left of them. I am ashamed most prominent Objectivists are going along for the ride with not so much as a peep. The only brave and outspoken Objectivist pushing back on the madness I can think of currently, is Alex Epstein.

Like it or not, they are the only ones pushing back at EVERYTHING else we've seen from the LEFT and the push for GLOBAL (read "foreign") oversight (read "intrusions and violations" ... "slavery") of societies throughout the world (read "the CONSTITUTION of the US of A, your life and your rights"), ever since the bad orange man kicked the bees nest in 2016, and threatened to tilt things way off course... More has been revealed in the past 6 years than ever I could have imagined in 2015. Even with ALL of its flaws, the GOP, right now, is the last great hope for Freedom in America let alone the rest of the world.

These can easily be remedied, although perhaps with the cost of relationship norms. A refusal to "deal" in a transaction has the analogue of refusing to answer and also refusing to excessively reveal. The trader principle does not say one MUST always trade (in fact one must not trade if it cannot be one's benefit) primarily it deals with how one trades and why. Transactionally, "evasion" does not exist, but refusal does. IF an otherwise innocent person asks you point blank for an answer you do not believe is appropriate for you to give, you do not pretend to transact (tell him something, evade and deceive) you refuse to transact. "I'm sorry but that is private" or "I'm sorry but that is not my secret to tell" or "I'm sorry I do not trust you with that information" Deception should be morally exercised to prevent someone from immorally gaining a value or causing harm etc. it would be like fraud if perpetrated on an innocent. You should deceive the confessed killer out to murder your wife, but not lie to your neighbor for no good reason. As for revealing or transparency... this seems to be equivalent to your obtaining possession of something which really belongs to someone else. Private information, ill-gotten secrets, something someone said... there you can take the side of justice ... or you can choose to take the side of a person. This is where integrity and courage come in... what is rational should almost always side with what is just. And information which is simply not someone's business... well they have no business asking, nor you answering.

Good to see you again HD. What happens when one looks at conversation as transactional? That in a real sense when we offer statements as true we are offering in a market of interactions something potentially of value and in a real conversation, it is in exchange with other statements. If a sort of trader principle applies… then wouldn’t offering up something worthless (a false statement) be kind of rotten? I’m not talking about trading with criminals but innocent citizens. Should not your offer and your exchange be genuine rather than fraudulent? Now, it is in your rational self interest not to be rotten for the same reason you want to be a good trader in the world… but in the moment isn’t your immediate concern with the trade going well? I’m not sure but I might disagree with both of you. Not being rotten is both rationally in your self interest AND shows your concern includes others. In fact your immediate concern for others can be self AND other interested when you are cooperatively building something. building wealth or knowledge according to the trader principle seems pretty much win win. We do not need another false dichotomy here.

What is behind the conspiracy of conspiracies? Who or what conspires to cause so many seemingly normal people to distrust power, distrust government, distrust institutions and organizations? IS there some nefarious source of the multiple allegations against so many of the trusted and established authorities of the world? Is it because some teenage archetype of the psyche wants a bad orange man to write mean tweets? Is it because of patriarchal racism or sexism? Is it Chinese disinformation or Russian mind control? Why so much push back against... what is the pushback against? on a wide integration .. some of these things are just like the others... but what is the common thread.. what is the one in the many? Its like they are resisting being herded. Why wont the herd be herded? it's almost like... they are rebelling against being herded at all? Like they are not accepting coercion? They want to decide for themselves and act independently of our great establishment Parents ... the Global arisen God... The conspiracy behind all conspiracies is a deep sense of individual freedom... and it just wont die. Rationalize that.

I would call this effect Trickle down Marxism but it’s been identified at the higher levels of education before under various guises and by different names. Rand and Peikoff touch on this thing… which is once again raised by someone who refused to be silent… food for thought, a unique and in depth perspective here:

I did, my son does…. my education was not trash… it was not rife with partisan political ideology. Indoctrination is abuse. Systematic collectivisation and neglect of the proper purpose of individual education ie knowledge and for that persons benefit, in favour of the state and statistical public welfare, is abhorrent. Kids need to learn how to think for themselves, not to be told what to think because it serves the so called public good, the good of some misfortune collective, or the fragile planet. The imposition of Obedience and RightThink are like psychological blows of a billy club that permanently cripples the soul. Ecoterrorism racism misandry dehumanizations creep into systems through indoctrination of administrative and teaching professionals at the college and career licensing levels… I know teachers too. Kids need knowledge, diversity of thought, and critical logical reasoning to lead a life of learning and to be capable of independent thought … to lead their own lives in the manner and with the values of their own choosing.

Modern public education is trash. Like "public" health, "public" education serves the State and purportedly the public, while neglecting the individual whose personal health and education for successfully living their own lives is neglected and sacrificed in favor of whatever "statistical" advantage the group can acquire from that sacrifice. Whatever you call the mess education is in, someone is to blame... even if perhaps we do not know who exactly that is.

"Mathematics is About the World" by Robert E. Knapp may be of interest to you.

But the point is less powerful in the face of the rise in global and domestic authoritarianism. A mixed economy as a passive economic background (Milton had to contend with) is one thing… the beast (of whom perhaps we’ve only glimpsed the tip of its tail) we are dealing with now, and whose fetishes include all ESG stands for, is far more powerful a consideration… and corporate players are anticipating and cow towing to those who may take over… they aren’t blind to the currents of free market consumerism, they are blinded with terror of the authoritarian tsunami. I believe the people and freedom will prevail in the end… (we will own things and will not eat bugs)…but corporations are the cowards in the fight… and it might get very ugly.

Correct no one owns children, and children do not have the capacity to consent to certain things, the consequences of which they cannot understand ... until they reach an age when generally they can, and with respect to that particular issue... they are no longer children.

You must have someone else in mind ... I an not talking about abortion. I'm raising the absurdity and evil of the left's tacit approval of actual infanticide... which is the murderous flip side of the anthropomorphising absurdity and mysticism of the right proclaiming a single celled embryo is a person. The asymmetry here is that of mechanistic murder versus religious tyranny. After having raised the issue of infanticide, I am now having a discussion whose subject is how a person or society should deal with helpless infants who will die without care. Failing to understand and accept your nature or evading such questions out of fear or pride is precisely what I would call letting emotions stand in the way of cognition. Man is rational, but man is also emotional, man is social, man is sexual, man is brutal, a man many things far greater and deeper than the single part you single out as important... and it IS incredibly important almost as important as free will. Do not confuse the definition of the concept of man, relying ONLY on what capability distinguishes us, as some kind of summation of ALL we are.. it is but a thin crinkle of tissue paper compared to the vast depths and breadths of what each of us is. What are the ramifications of having that responsibility? Is it merely an admonition to a parent that they will feel bad if they abdicate that responsibility... merely a "you'll be sorry" if you murder or neglect your child and they die. What does it mean to "have a responsibility" with respect to the ethical;, societal, political (legal) context? Does reality or anyone in society hold them in any way to that responsibility? How? On what basis? Again, I am not talking about abortion in this discussion. I'm was talking about infanticide and am discussing the care of children.