ropoctl2

...and devalue the dollar 500%. That's what gold has done in the last few years, so THAT is what you are banking on happening in the next few (assuming gold doesn't go even higher, which is probably what it would do if there were actually REAL inflation indicators).

So yeah goldbugs, you are envisioning a world where a Toyota Camry goes for about $125,000 when the price of the thing has gone from $22k to $26k in the LAST ten years. Good luck with that.

The assumption about monetary expansion automatically leading to price inflation is like assuming a storehouse of TNT will inevitably blow up because you assume somebody will put a match to it. But a potentiality is not an actuality.




"Past performance is no guarantee of future returns". Which is to say that, the same applies to AAPL, GOOG or some other home-run stock or a thousand other investments you can come up with that did really well. The early investors in Facebook are on-tap to make 1000x their initial investments. What is your point?



OP

Am I alone in thinking that the Stock Market is immoral and irrational? The reason I believe it is, is because a company should grow as far as it can by the individual instead of a group that makes money for doing nothing and allowing a company to grow only if they feel like it. The group can also make the creator of the company leave if he doesn't bow down to their will.

Just who are these “rebels”?

I’m reminded of the so-called rebels in the Kosovo War of the late 1990’s, the “Kosovo Liberation Army”. We were forced to pay for their so-called liberation of Kosovo, which some people might not have done had they a choice.

Current events sound like the same old story: replace a recalcitrant dictatorial government with another, more compliant, dictatorial government.

It’s interesting to note that many Objectivists (not very Objective in this case) approve of regime change in Libya but not in Egypt. The change in Egypt really was spontaneous: unlike in Kosovo and Libya where NATO was the driving force.

Relevant ancient history: The Lockerbie Pan Am flight 103 crash in December 1988 was not perpetrated by Libya but rather Iran (in retaliation for the USS Vincennes downing of Iran Air Flight 655 in July 1988 when the U.S. was supporting Saddam Hussein) – see the work of Rodney Stich. The terrorist attack in France in 1986 that was blamed on Libya was only made to look like it was done by Libya, after which Reagan bombed Tripoli and other Libyan areas killing about 40 civilians – see The Other Side of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky.

Why are we forced to pay for the “liberation” of Libya? There’s only one reason: the powerlust of elements within the administration.

And they will spin the war as in your self-interest, per usual.

They did it all for you, us Americans I mean, so be grateful lil chilins.

Awesome.




Why do you assume that an Objectivist "expert" knows more about any subject than anyone else, and that anyone who disagrees with the "expert" must be mistaken? We haven't even brought up any specific issues, yet you're position is that the only proper action of anyone who disagrees with an Objectivist "expert" is try to understand his own mistake? And daring to suggest that an "expert" might be wrong is an "insult"?

In other words, you're saying that the Objectivist "experts" are infallible -- that they are always right, and those who disagree with them are always wrong (and therefore need to "try to understand their mistake"). So, what I'm wondering is how does one get promoted to Objectivist "expert" status and therefore achieve infallibility? Does one somehow demonstrate one's infallibility? If so, I'd be eager to learn how, since, as I've said in an earlier post, the overwhelming majority of Objectivist "experts" have not faced peer review or rigorous scholarly criticism of their work or their beliefs.




I think Peikoff deserves criticism. And I think Rand would agree if she were alive. I think she'd be outraged at some of the things he's said and done in the name of Objectivism.




I think that your mindset about Objectivist "experts" and their infallibility is what's insulting to Objectivism.

J

I don't think that people can be considered "major figures" in a movement while either hiding their identities or making them difficult to discover. I sometimes get the impression that certain people here are ashamed to be associated with Objectivism.




OO may be popular, and fun, but I think that if you want serious, meaty discussions with knowledgeable people, OL has much heavier hitters (including published writers like George H. Smith, Jeff Riggenbach, Roger Bissell, etc.), primarily because, unlike other forums, OL allows everyone to speak freely, including non-Objectivists, and thus attracts higher caliber minds (the owners of OL don't see Objectivism as being weak and as needing protection from strong criticism).

J

Oh hey. Johnathan13's post that I downvoted got voted back up to 0, and my post got downvoted to -3. Someone who insults expert Objectivists has his comment upvoted, while my post is downvoted by three separate individuals. A person cannot vote on their own posts, so someone besides Johnathan13 thought his post was good, and a minimum of two people besides him thought my post was bad enough to vote down.

Which proves the point I was making when I made my post. Why should a major Objectivist subject himself to coming here when a culture like this has taken root? When a user on this site disagrees with an expert on how to apply Objectivism, they don't try to understand their mistake. They just insult the expert, who knows more than them, for calling them out on it. Peikoff-bashing has become a semi-common pastime in the chat now, because heaven forbid Objectivism have identity and an expert dare tell someone that their conclusions contradict Objectivism.

The chatroom (not the forum) of this site was the last bastion of reason (that I know of) for online Objectivist social sites. Why? Because we were allowed to pass harsh judgment on people who insulted the experts we look to for guidance. When it was shown that you can get into trouble with the administration for passing harsh, deserved judgment on people like that, it set a precedent. The more consistent of an Objectivist you are, the more you have to keep your judgments to yourself in the face of people like that, and the more common they become on this site.

The rule on this site about not coming here to insult Objectivism is what preserved this site for so long. Insulting Objectivism's experts is basically a loophole to that rule. If you're going to allow people to insult the experts, at least allow the better, more consistent Objectivists on this site to stand up for them.

Why don't any Major Objectivists participate in online forums? Observe the cultural state of this and the other online forums for a potential answer.

so it's been a while since I've posted on these forums, you may recall my heretical and purposefully evocative thread titled "I'm thinking about leaving objectivism"

I'm curious (although not particularly concerned) whether some of you would consider me an objectivist or not, here are my credentials:

-I think epistemologically, empiricism/reason is clearly superior/proper, I'm am a firm atheist without a trace of mysticism/agnosticism/whimsy

-I want free market capitalism/individual rights enforced by a small government.

-I think full egoism is deeply moral, and its converse is conversely/abjectly depraved

-I find romantically realistic art to be the most life affirming

-Metaphysically, I think the universe is fixed/absolute/solid/objectively to be mastered

-I say these things "on one foot", but I have comprehensively studied/read all of Rand's/Peikoff's/Branden's non/fiction, as well as other media by objectivists (podcasts, op-eds, public appearances, speeches, etc etc.)

I bring that up so you know I'm not someone who read The Fountainhead and loosely said "hey yeah that sounds good", it's more of "hey wow that is my philosophy realized, and my identity understood in a heretofore unexperienced rational context. This is coming from someone who's also read a lot of works of other philosophers and has a broad understanding of what the stakes are.

things you would probably dislike about me:

I think there is/was a dogmatic streak in Rand/Peikoff/ARI, and I think that's very hypocritical. This is probably my biggest contention. I liken it this way..let's say you are driving down a highway, and you see signs that say that your exit is in 50 miles (read: objectivism). You can then check your own map and have it confirmed. You see a lot of these signs. At the last sign, despite what your map says and what all they other signs said, it says that there is no exit. You are confused, and therefore have to disregard that particular sign while still appreciating those signs which continue to point the way and help you orient yourself.

You should know I'm not choosing whim over dogma, I'm saying if you really don't bullshit yourself, you will agree that there is institutional dogmatism in the objectivist movement. This is why I think Rand was right to be hesitant over the formation of an objectivist organization like the ARI. It's too dangerous, and even though we may think we are mature/independent enough to be able to have a organization of objectivists, it has not occurred.

I agree with Stefan Molyneux that it doesn't make sense to call your philosophy "objectivism" in the same way that you don't call evolution "Darwinism". It's evolution, and "objectivism" is philosophy. In the same vein It annoys me how Rand (allegedly) wanted other people to conform to some of her preferences, and personal opinions. Even though I think a large amount of the heat that's been directed at Rand's personal life is completely bunk, and stems from people desperately evading/looking for a chink in her armor, and not finding much to work with. Even so, it does appear that too many objectivists did/do kowtow to what they think she would have preferred. And keep in mind this is coming from a person who agrees with Rand about the morality (and subsequent necessity) of judgment.

Here's a third thing. I'm a lot less hostile than a lot of objectivists to what is largely called libertarianism. I respect/support Ron Paul for various reasons, and have no qualms about calling myself a libertarian. (Hell, Yaron Brook has even called Oist politics libertarian "in a non-Rothbardian" sense). I don't agree with some of Yaron Brook's criticism of Ron Paul. You can attack Ron Paul for a lot, and be right, but he's still far closer to the position of individual rights than a mainstream republican than whoever Brook would support in 2012. I'm a lot less hostile towards anarcho-capitalism than a lot of my fellow capitalists, even though I'm not and have never been an anarchist, and ultimately think it's contradictory. I appreciate the works of ancapists as a valid part of the theoretical work for capitalism.


my laptop is running out of battery, but these are some of the main reasons I'm no longer calling myself a student of objectivism, despite the life altering influence it has and will continue to have on me as I continue to study and live it. I understand the fact that objectivism is truly unique. There are no philosophies like it. It really is an achievement of the ages. So maybe you'd think me an objectivist seeing as in many ways (about 90-95%) still find it to be my philosophy. I think I basically am, but sans a few items of flotsam. I'd be interested to hear your replies if you care to share them.

Good luck with your project, but don't expect any support from here. Judgement goes one way here. Its a tool used to condemn. When there is something to praise, there has consistently been silence.

Elsewhere, I've heard the type called "Objectionists."

What the hell is this? I am sure I am not the only one that is thinking this , but I am going to say it : This is scary stuff (definitely not in a good way ). I think you might need to get some help. Actually, I am wondering why you think we might want to read this. I would be surprised if any worthy users of this forum would want to.

Blue sat on the cold ground, propped up by a tombstone that was streaked with greenish grey mold. His expressionless face stared out past the cemetery. Still dark clouds were smeared low across the sky, blurring the lines between everything. The cemetery spread out down a hill and lead into the city below. Blue couldn’t tell the difference between the graveyard and the city in the fog.The skyline stood as a graveyard, with each building a tombstone to a stillborn idea.

“Is there a difference?” he stood up and walked slowly among the rows of headstones. He paused at one that had lived and died some hundred years before he had even been born. The name and dates told him nothing beyond that fact. The person had lived to be seventy two years old. A whole life, he thought. This person had been born, gone to school, had lovers, owned houses and cars. He had been loved and hated. A whole life time worth of memories and events, and people. Now it was all forgotten and unknown to anyone. All that remained of an entire life is this stone, with a name and date.

Blue’s long ears drooped. He suddenly thought how beautiful the old grey stone would look with his bloody brains splashed across it. He stood staring into the distance with that vision in his head, then abruptly moved on. He stopped when he reached a small, plain, black, marble tombstone. It belonged to a boy who was born dead on the same day that Blue had been born. Blue felt a sort of twisted kinship with the stillborn and thought they were very much alike. He thought how lucky it is to die without ever having had the pain of living.

Blue continued on past tombstone after tombstone. He looked at how random the ages were. Sixteen, 73, 35, 3 months. No matter what you do, what kind of person you are, what kind of life you live, this is how everyone ends up. How can anything matter when natures goal for you is to to be rotting underground in a wooden box. All of mans aspirations and aims are futile in light of natures ultimate destiny. People spend millions on makeup, gyms and diets, but in the end they succumb to wrinkles, hair loss, sagging flesh, bulging veins. You lose your sight, your hearing and you die alone in the dark, silence.

People spend decades on school, college and work place education to reach the point where they can’t remember their children’s names or how to take a shit by themselves. What’s the use in falling in love only to watch everything you loved about the person drain away with the years and leave you alone in the end anyways. Why go through the trouble, he thought. “What is the point of struggling and fighting when there is nothing to gain?”

There is nothing anyone can do to stop it. All of man knowledge and ability, science, medicine and technology are powerless before entropy and death. People call life a rat race, like it is a game. What is the purpose of a game you can never win? Frustration and disappointment and a sense of helplessness.

That is what Blue was thinking when it started to rain. He shivered as the small, cold drops rolled down his ears. He sighed in bitter resignation as he turned and walked with his head hung low toward a mausoleum.

Cassius was laying flat on her back on top of a huge marble slab, one bare foot hanging lazily over the edge. She had pushed the skeleton from its rightful spot and was now resting her black haired head on the grinning skull. You have a lot to be happy about, she thought.

This mousoleum belonged to a young couple who had been burned alive in a car wreck on their wedding day. Cassius stared at the looming stone ceiling, half dazed while she idy fingered herself. She had been trying to get off, but she had grown bored and was quickly losing interest. Besides, she kept thinking of being burned alive and whether or not that would be worse than drowning to death. It depends on what you drown in, she concluded.

That is what Cassius was thinking of when Blue walked into the cold tomb, soaking wet. He smiled warily when he saw her and sat on the edge of her not-so-final resting place, his legs dangling off the side. Cassius’s ears perked up and she laid he head in Blue’s lap. He slowly ran his long fingers through her short black hair and over her ears. He did this absently, his mind preoccupied. At that moment he was thinking of when a baby bird tries to fly for the first time and it falls to the unforgiving earth, breaking every bone it its fragile little body. While he thought of that, Cassius unbuttoned and unzipped his pants.

When Blue finally realized what the rabbit was doing he sighed, “Cassius, I really don’t feel like doing anything,”

“So?” she said, sitting up and stuck out her bottom lip in a pouty frown, the next moment she smiled mischievously.

She pushed him onto his back and hopped on top of him, straddling his body. Blue looked away and sighed, but put his hands on her thin hips. Cassius looked at his distant, lifeless expression and wondered for a moment as she felt her cunt grow wet, why she liked to do this so much with Blue when it was obvious that he didn’t want to. Well, she thought – that is the reason, I guess.

The rabbit leaned down, putting her face close to his and rested her two fingers on his lips. They still smelled of her – to Blue it was a warm and familiar, like a tattered stuffed animal that manged to survive pass childhood. Cassius slid her finger’s into his mouth and began slowly pushing them in and out while breathing heavily into his ear.

“You like that, don’t you little boy?” she said slyly.

Blue had closed his eyes, resigned to his fate as a living masturbation toy. He slid his hands up her thin shirt onto her flat stomach and then onto her small breasts. She laughed at the mixed look on his face of torture and pleasure as she felt him grow hard beneath her ass, despite his protests. She began to rock her eager body against his hard cock and traced long pink lines down his chest with her sharp nails. Blue bit down on his bottom lip and opened his eyes. She took her fingers out of his mouth.

“That always works, you little slut,” she said, Blue smiled sheepishly and shrugged as she pulled off her pants and threw them, rattling some dusty bones nearby. An expression of horror dominated Blue’s face as he noticed the grinning skull of the doomed bride and remembered what this place was.

He was speechless, but he tried to fight his way from underneath the insane rabbit. She grinned from ear to long pointed ear at the look on his face and she pushed down on him, forcing his still hard cock inside of her dripping hole. She shuddered as it slid in easily, touching ever part. Blue closed his eyes again and tried to focus on the warm, wet, slippery sensation between his legs. Cassius started to rock against him, sliding him all the way in her and all the way out, over and over. She licked his closed mouth then bit down viciously on his lip, filling her mouth with the taste of old pennies.

Blue moaned along and help her hips as she moved up and down. He looked up at Cassius’s face, she had her head leaned back and she was smiling – the kind of grin one gets from destroying something you love. He felt her body tense, the muscles contracting around his dick, felt like a million snakes coiled around it. She pulled a handful of his messy light brown hair and shoved her body down as hard as she could as she came on him. Blue laid back expectantly while she laid still for a moment. Then she sat up smiling maliciously as she pulled herself off his glistening, unsatisfied cock.

“You didn’t want to do it anyways, right?” she said spitefully. Blue started to object as she pulled her pants on but knew it was useless to try and fight her. Besides he was thinking of how a parasite numbs you when it bites.

That's surprising that the curriculum in Singapore focuses on Chinese and Indian civilization, when Singapore owes much more to the Western tradition. I would definitely learn about the Greeks. Eugen Weber's Western civilization course is a good intro: http://www.learner.org/resources/series58.html

Bold mine:

I completely disagree with you guys on this. What you are saying is essentially the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Obviously people can agree with Objectivism and then change their minds. To say that they never truly agreed with it because they changed their minds is clearly a logical fallacy.

I have a few problems with the idea of patents and copyrights. I'm hoping someone can explain a rationale for them that's a little clearer than Rand's in her essay on the subject.

1. Rand said that patents and copyrights are a recognition of the idea that people have the right to the product of their own mind. Ignoring exceptions Rand did or would've made to this (children, mathematical discoveries, or a laser which is our only hope of saving the Earth from a giant asteroid on a collision course with our planet) doesn't this just mean that it should be illegal for someone to read your mind and use one of your ideas (which no one else knows) without your permission?

2. How is telling someone they can't use an invention someone else came up with not an initiation of force if the person who invented it willingly told other people about it? I don't see how you're being harmed by people using an idea you came up with if you voluntarily tell them about it. Someone might argue that without the inventor, the idea couldn't be used by the society at large. However, the other element is them telling people about it, which is a choice.

Furthermore, couldn't someone invent a new type of metal and sell it without telling anyone how it works and make a lot of money off of it before it gets reverse-engineered? It seemed to work for Henry Rearden (until he gave it away). I have no problem with a person inventing something, not telling anyone how it works, and selling it to people (unless there's a plausible national security risk involved in our not understanding it, like if it's a cold fusion reactor instead of a metal or a faster processor), but it's not like the moment you invent something it automatically becomes known to the general public.

What about someone getting donations for inventing something? There's no reason why they necessarily would make less money off their invention if there's no patents or copyrights. If everyone could use the a machine which improves economies of scale, there would be the potential for a greater increase in productivity than if it's use is limited. If everyone who could implement the new technology did, and everyone who would've paid the inventor's asking price if s/he held a patent and set a price still did despite the lacks of patents, and someone else who used the invention donated something (however small), the inventor would make more money because s/he didn't/couldn't set a price to keep people from using the invention.

3. Rand said a mathematical or philosophical discovery is about the nature of reality, but a new machine isn't. Therefore, mathematical and philosophical discoveries aren't copyright-worthy, but machines are patent-worthy. But doesn't the machine also concern the nature of reality (i.e. if you put these things in this arrangement you get this result)? I'm not sure how we draw the line between what's copyright/patent-worthy and what isn't. Is a new style of clothing copyright-worthy? If not, how is it fundamentally different from a song?

4. Even if patents are legitimate, I'm not sure how copyrights could possibly be legitimate because there's no way (I can think of) where you can demonstrate a copyright violation. At what point does the new song/book/screenplay become similar enough that there's a violation? By what standard? What about "fair use"? How can we draw the line between satire and non-satire? I think it's ridiculous to say "Oh, well that's not an issue for philosophy. There's some line somewhere, and we'll just let the courts figure it out." Can't philosophy at least provide us with some guidelines on this issue? And, if so, what are those guidelines?

Since antitrust is illegitimate because there's no way anyone can know when they're violating the "law", do I really have to go through every copyrighted book where it's plausible that there could be a copyright violation before I try to release a new book? What if (by a dramatic coincidence) there's a number of similarities with some book written 20 years ago? How am I supposed to avoid this? Maybe no one figures this out until a few months after it's released and I get sued big time. Is that really fair?

* * *

Just in case it gets made if I don't already respond to it, I want to address a utilitarian argument I often hear on this subject (I'm guessing it wouldn't, but I still want to cover this just in case).

"But people won't be motivated to invent without patents and copyrights"

Wouldn't it make just as much sense to say "But people won't voluntarily donate to the government without taxes"? I'd say that if people are self-interested, they'll donate to inventors/artists. As far as the "free-rider problem" goes with respect to taxes, I suppose most Objectivists would argue (and I agree with them) that you shouldn't trade/hire/work for the non-totally broke people who don't donate to the government. I apply the same argument to the non-totally broke people who don't donate to inventors/artists.

* * *

Finally, while this is a bit off-topic, since all property is fundamentally intellectual, isn't the term "intellectual property" a redundancy (like "rational self-interest" or "ethical egoism" or "individual rights" or "laissez-faire capitalism")? Shouldn't we just say something like "ideas property"?

I am apparently gonna be pissing off by taking humor seriously, but the truth must be told:

It seems like he does not think, rather memorizes some slogans as a substitute to actual reasoning, while speaking.
They probably don't even have a good source \ indication on the nature of a rational argument, since I never respond automatically, I don't think of Ayn Rand either while discussing. I think and phrase my sentences in my head before slowly putting the argument.
As well, observe that the therapist simply reacts with "Aha . . . I see . . . you are an Objectivist" (mentioned as if it were some illness) without proving what's wrong with it.
And he is the one to be considered the "common sense" in the issue. In a recent context, it reminds me a fanatic mystic who confessed that he 'just knows' that god exists.

Where exactly can a young guy get Objectivism during his freshman year? LOL, they would wish he could have so they can regard themselves underground, but just go to Google and search for Objectivism; past month. You won't find a whole lot of percentage of positive ones.
Ojectivism is the exact opposite of existentialism, being founded on the principle 'Existence Exists.' As well, it holds that everything is itself.

An Objectivist does not have to define sky---it demonstrates some fundamental misunderstanding of the epistemology of definitions.
A definition is required so long as a concept is an abstraction from abstraction, which means: it requires complex conceptualization and is not an obvious sensory given.
In such a case, a definition is required so one can know what he's talking about. But according to Objectivism, conceptualization and perception are an axiomatically valid means of knowledge.

"Private corporations cannot be trusted with the means of production."
Let alone the fact I suppose he means the vice versa, because this sounds pretty Marxist---
this altruism is not even the sort of abstract circumstances of O`ism. Plus "means of production" is a floating abstraction and an invalid terminology since it assumes that the property (=values) just exists and the rest is a matter of who luckily picks it up.

"Libertarian, why?"

Omitting the fact that the (partial) similarity between O`ism qua philosophy and Libertarianism qua "philosophy" is exclusively technical, concrete; the libertarian party is not liberal (as a derivative of 'liberty,' the genetic roots of the concepts) even in accordance with libertarian standards.

"I'm afraid he has a severe case of logical contradiction."
A is A?

"Is he an idiot?---For the moment, yes."
Rationality as man's basic virtue?

"[A]nd I'm going to hire him. Son, I'm gonna pay you minimum wage for papers . . ."
Objectivism does find money a value, but not an ultimate value.
Personally, I cannot stand people who give up their greatest values and especially moral principles in order to get beloved by anyone and thus "earn" some bucks.
Personally, I would never agree to receive tax-paid money (unless I have already paid taxes throughout my previous life), no matter how great it is.
So, the contradiction does not exist.


Yet, I must admit that the Samus T-shirt made me laugh A LOT

I don't mean to suggest that. I do however think that if you are approaching dating from the perspective of seeking someone of high value, it is unlikely that it would mesh well with seeking someone for a short term. If they really are someone you care for deeply, then they are also someone you would want to keep in your life indefinitely. Almost anyone you're slightly attracted to could be enjoyable for a few months so if sex is relegated to the purpose of being cheap fun for as long as it lasts, than standards don't need to be high, and are not, regardless of what kind of spin someone tries to put on it.

I think you are looking for too concrete of an approach. Knowing someone for six months, and seeing them for 3 hours every month is very different from knowing them for six weeks and spending sixteen hours of every day with them. I realize that there can be outliers but outliers can't form the basis of moral decision making. Because they're rare you have to adjust to them as they occur.

In my opinion, as a general rule, I think around six months is a reasonable amount of time to get to know someone, assuming a reasonable amount of time together alone and in the context of each others friends and families, in order to determine if you would like to become involved with them. In that context, a relationship you chose to be in would have a few years to develop into something more meaningful or fizzle out if he or she isn't the one. This would likely function on an honest basis as opposed to other scenarios like sleeping with someone who "felt right" on the first night and spending the next four months trying to justify it because the intense emotional connection you got from the sex forces you to evade their inherent lack of moral worth and try to focus on the little good that is there. This sort of time frame when considered with the time between relationships leads me to think that up to 8 or so relationships would be in the reasonable range before there would be reason to immediately assume poor values or carelessness with their emotions.



Faster is more careless and I think people tend to do better when they are a little greedy with how they hand out their affections. I don't think it necessary to wait for your perfect soul mate or whatever, if that's what your asking with the Ayn Rand as a standard, question.

You still have not provided an objective validation.

How many people, and in what time span is "promiscuous?"
How "high" must a persons value be before it is not being promiscuous to sleep with them? And how long and well must you know them?
Is anyone less valuable that say, Ayn Rand, unacceptable? What is the standard here?

For me the issue is about the intention of your post.

My position on this issue is this: The nature of the idea of "God" renders it arbitrary; if not then the idea becomes something-other-than-God. This is why I insist on a definition of God. Any definition of God that makes God "God," includes at least one contradictory element. (I hope that came across sensibly.) When all contradictory or arbitrary elements are removed, one is left with something non-God (as well as metaphysically true), such as "the universe" or "consciousness."

Right, I agree with that. I wasn't trying to say that the hydrogen bond is observable, it is not. I was trying to make a point that water is something in reality and that is why it acts the way it does. This is given on the perceptual level as in the examples you gave, but some people insist on going to the latest greatest scientific discovery when talking about causation, so I decided to take up that challenge. We know about water and what it is with direct observation. Everything else we find out about it requires further investigations using scientific instruments and further abstractions.

I have been a prolific poster to this forum and I want to make a public statement in that regard. Unbeknownst to me -- with no notice or warning -- a moderator, NIJamesHughes, has modified the content of some posts of mine. I am only aware of this fact because someone else brought it to my attention. I have no idea what content of mine in any other posts has been changed. Therefore, for the record, I want it to be known that no one should take the content of any previous postings bearing my name on this forum, to necessarily be reflective of my actual views.

I take my ideas, and my reputation, very seriously. I refuse to participate on a forum where what I write can be changed without any notice or acknowledgement to me. I am leaving this forum immediately.

Just to trow my two cents into the subject of the Tea Party; I went from being a Republican, to a Tea Party Member (Like to think I still am one) to Libertarian, then to a student of Objectivism. I agree that the forming of Tea Party was an emotional response, but one that can lead to the rational conclusions of Objectivism.
Can't be too bad, can it?

I am trying to learn the quote function so bear with me here. Sorry. I am so use to writing in essay form I will continue with that mode for now.

Sev wrote:

They are your allies, Sev. Many have agreed to put any social issues on the back burner. If you want to improve your own life, in the long run, you need to improve your government.

Don’t forget Judge Narragansett from Atlas Shrugged:

The Tea Party can do that in 2012. No Objectivist need sanction everything a political party does. Ayn Rand supported Dewey (no joke) and Goldwater.

Extremism in the defense of Objectivism, even going to the extent of joining a political movement, is no vice. Doing nothing, or speaking as a nihilistic spoiler, or voting for someone who is sure to lose, is not virtuous and it is not what Ayn Rand did. Aren’t some candidates worth supporting? America IS worth saving. Ayn Rand's *government* is based on the United States Constitution.

In Robert Tracinski's “An Interview with Jamie Radtke, Part 2, he asks the Senatorial Tea Party and Republican candidate from Virginia about the Repeal Amendment and Jamie replied:




Interesting. A two-thirds majority of the state’s legislatures can repeal any law, rule, regulation, or tax passed by Congress. But a “con-con” or constitutional convention must first be called, to enact The Repeal Amendment. Do we trust the B%$#*tards to do JUST that?

Does anyone have any thoughts about the advisability of passing this amendment? The Government is once again, about to run out of money and ten elected, Tea Party Senator’s are tired of it. I like The Repeal Amendment better than calling more than one constitutional convention in the coming years. . . or politics as usual.

Semper cogitans fidele,
Peter Taylor

General note: if I recall correctly, ctrl y is a fellow who used to be an Objectivist and now considers himself Christian. The only reason I mention this is because some people seem to think he is not familiar with Oist principles and I believe it is the case that he is very familiar with them and disagrees anyway. I don't know if this affects how people choose to engage in this argument, but it might.

http://templeofthehumanspirit.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/humanist-sermon-on-the-mount/

I am blown away that people think this guy, the guy that parrots on about the Constitution more than any other congressman, act like if he became President he would just executive order federally ban it. Abortion and gay marriage are two issues I am very, very strongly in favor of and normally being against these things means a no vote for me regardless of your other qualifications, but while his position is not ideal, its certainly not as bad as most social conservatives, no less the social conservatives that are running would have it, and this assumes he would even be able to get these things passed. Also, his slim jim's for this campaign specifically state he is against socialized medicine, so I doubt you have to worry about him trying to institute something through that programme. Also, he will have his hands full with everything he wishes to do with respect to the economy and foreign policy that it would likely be even more of a wedge issue than it is currently.