A.A

I didn't know anything about the doctor, other than that he had been a supporter of people's rights to end their life or to ask a medical expert to help them- a cause which I support. I just watched an intereview with him on Fox News (given in 2009), and I am not sure what to make of his views. In part 3 he mentions Ayn Rand and her warning against the rise of Fascism in America, and generally lays out an individualistic world-view. However, in part 2 of that interview he expresses a rather sad view of life- in general, it seems, and not just the lives of the ill. He says things that make one conclude that he dosen't think that anyone's life is really worth living, because the downs are greater than the ups. That is a very un-Objectivist view, of course, and it sounds anti-life. That makes me wonder what his motive really was. How can one champion people's rights so ardently, going as far as risking jail, with that kind of sad a view of the meaning of life? Perhaps I am over-simplifying the matter, but that is my first reaction to this clip.

I sympathize with the above statement very much.

Strangelove, For the record, I would like to state that with my current understanding of Hobbes, I agree with your reading. I think that Hobbes's emphasis on the rationality of the human being was important and even revolutionary because it came from a non-religious (and possibly atheist) perspective. Some of the founding fathers of the United States, by the way, did not hold a view of human nature which was very different then Hobbes's. (Hamilton for instance)

This is a little less obvious than his no tolerance position on atheists; some scholars interpret it differently. So for argument's sake, let's assume he did mean that.

The quote came from here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...us_libertarians And about Locke's problem- Locke is also advocating no tolerance for Catholics; you may think that his foundation for that (the fact that Catholics yield to the Pope) is much more reasonable (surely in the 17th century) than his presumption about atheists. And yet, under a proper free system, it would also be wrong to forbid Catholics their beliefs, would it not? Not because you have any sympathy for Catholics, and even though you perhaps think that people who practice Catholicism are immoral by the nature of their choice, it is still their *right* to believe in immoral things, is it not? And that's why I ask if there isn't something amoral in a proper political system. (I am not touching the Libertarian ideology per se, because I don't have sufficient knowledge of it, and also not the time to discover; I am not an American citizen, so I don't have a practical reason to think about that)

Here: (John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, Latin and English text revised by Mario Montuori, The Hauge: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963, p. 93) As to: From that, I can infer that an enormous percentage of the population has to be rational and moral, in order to establish even a partly- free society. Is that what you think?

In his Letter Concerning Toleration . I'll bring the exact quote later.

While denouncing the Libertarian movement, Ayn Rand wrote the following: (Emphasis added) My point is not to discuss Libertarianism, but rather to ask: Would an Objectivist political program not be "amoral" in some sense? For instance, would it not allow immoral behavior such as advocating religious ideas, simply because it's the legal right of the person advocating? When I read John Locke's stance that atheists should not enjoy political freedom, my first problem with that was not that I'm an atheist (which is true enough), but that Locke would not grant me the freedom to exercise my beliefs- unless they harm someone else's rights- even if they conflict with his own moral conviction. Do you think that from an Objectivist point of view, there is something wrong in that line of thought?

Most certainly. This is a very important fact to remember. By the way, in N. Branden`s Judgement Day he writes that in AR`s funeral, an order came not to let either of the Brandens enter; so you understand Rand`s (and Rand`s heirs) attitude towards them. Rand`s post-Atlas depression (of about two years) is confirmed by Rand herself, as shown in The Passion of Ayn Rand`s Critics.

Thanks everyone, but since no one here seems to have a knowledgeable solution, I'll say that my own guess is that AR said what she did in 1959 because she was afraid for her remaining relatives (her sister Nora, for instance), and preferred that no one knew that she could obtain information about Russia. I just wondered if the answer appears in some biography that someone here has read. (Jesus, isn't there some decent comprehensive biography of Rand, authorized or unauthorized? I mean, I don't think that many people will disagree with her estimation as an interesting and important enough figure... Just a little rant)

In Letters of Ayn Rand, I read that sometime in the 1940`s, AR learned that her parents had died during World War II (or shortly before). In her interview in the Mike Wallace show, in 1959, she says that she does not know what has happened to them. Does anyone know the reason for this discrepancy? (I can guess, I am just interested if anyone knows for a fact) Thanks in advance.

It was nice. It was in a military-oriented room, just outside an actual military base, which was surprising. Dr Brook said the things that sound quite basic to me, but that need to be said these days because they have been forgotten- that the western world is in a war, and that in order to win, the west needs to remember what the values it is fighting for are. And the very basic fact that in a war there are casualties. That was the very basic gist of it. For a more detailed summery you can look here: http://israblog.nana.co.il/blogread.asp?bl...logcode=6763958 (Unlike Avi, I don't know much about military strategy, so I prefer not to write about it- look at the comments too) It was very interesting to hear (as opposed to read) basic rational arguments such as these in a lecture.

Being a somewhat casual visitor to this forum for the past few months, I missed the chance to show some local-patriotism for the most prolific writer here of those currently living in Israel. So: Happy birthday!

Were you there?

Dagny wasn`t outright approached either; if memory serves me correctly, even after she had resigned, when Fransisco came to her cabin, he didn`t outright approach her to come with him (though being very emotional at that scene, he was close to doing so before getting her to admit that she should quit). The strikers`s method, I believe, was first making their candidates for strike come to the realization that they are "the guiltiest people in the world", that they are helping the looters, and only then approach them with the practical option of going on strike. Look at the number of times Fransisco approached Rearden, talked to him, and realized that he has not yet come to grasp the above realization. So Rearden did in fact choose not to except the premise that would have let him to the gulch.