Nicky

There was a story the other day about a Mexican family who supported him. They took him at his word that he's only after criminals...changed their minds after the father was deported.

Language! Still, darn well put

No one accused you of owning any slaves. Just of associating with neo-nazis, by spreading their memes. It's also not about "left vs. right". I doubt MisterSwig is a socialist. He could be, I don't know him, but he sound like an Objectivist, to me. So you might want to consider the possibility that this is a case of "Objectivism vs right". And you're not on the Objectivism side.

Not sure why that would be. Personally, I don't see the upside in getting killed by a bear (or a bacteria) instead of a person. But sure, maybe evil humans are more scary on a primal level. Still, if we just look at killings caused by malicious intent...Islamic terror is still a several orders of magnitude smaller threat, in the US, than all kinds of categories of threats that get neglected. I think a better explanation for why collectivists focus on this threat over others is that this is perceived to be an external threat. An internal threat is seen as a threat to individuals. An external threat, even if the damage it causes is small compared to internal threats, is seen as a threat to something far more important than individual victims: it is seen as a threat to the group as a whole. And, of course, the "solution" to external threats is far more appealing to the collectivist mindset, because it allows them to view the world as two clearly defined collectives pitted against each other. With internal threats, you have to be rational, figure out exactly which individual is responsible for the crime, etc. etc. It's tedious, unimportant work. There can be 20 murders in a city, in a weekend, and it barely even makes the news. Forget doing something to prevent it, they solve what, 50% of murder cases, in the US? So half the people responsible don't even get caught. And no one cares. Meanwhile, eight people killed by a Muslim immigrant in NYC: we get to really do something about it. We get to put millions of "them" on terrorist watch lists, tens of thousands on no fly lists, and ban entry from entire countries.

Neither is tetanus.

What's important to remember, at times like this, is that your life is under greater threat from at least 100 different things, than it is from Islam. Thousands of different things, if you break down big categories like "poisoning" into smaller, more specific ones. Some, you probably aren't even aware of...and no one on the news has ever mentioned them to you. Like here's a good one: tetanus. Nasty little bacteria. Should be significantly more scary to the average westerner than Islam.

It's not just nine people though. The Supreme Court has a lot of man power and resources in their employment, beyond just the nine Justices. That's beyond the reach of any Oist organization. I just can't agree with setting the bar that high for Objectivist activists. What you seem to be suggesting is the equivalent of running a shadow government. Not the silly kind opposition parties tend to run in some European countries (which just consist of "shadow ministers" second guessing government decisions), but replicating the work of a full time legislature and court system. And the work of a government is not linear. They don't just craft their laws one at a time, in a row, until they're finished. It's incremental and continuous: laws built on previous laws, case law built on those laws, case law built on case law, addressing more and more specific areas of need, resolving more and more obscure questions and disagreements, as they are raised by the citizenry, over the course of decades and even centuries. So even if the financial and intellectual resources existed to replicate the work of a government, and this shadow government would start building its laws and precedents on real cases, their work would incrementally grow more and more removed from real events (because Oist laws and case laws would be so different from existing laws, they would quickly run out of real life cases that are relevant to their alternative legislation), and lose its relevance. In other words, they would run out of the third category of resources, needed to build a justice system: the citizenry...real people, with real disagreements they seek resolution to. So we will never have a magical hat to reach into, that can give us concrete answers to any question, objection, or purported contradiction a critic of Objectivist politics might raise. We will always have to hope that people have the vision to look past the fact that we don't have all the answers. And we will always (well, until if/when there's an Objectivist government some place) have to settle for offering concretes that essentially go along the lines of us pointing out how a government act violates a high level principle. We will never be able to offer an alternative to a specific, low level law or precedent, that fits neatly (free of contradiction or blank spaces) into an alternative, hypothetical legal system. P.S. I might be misunderstanding you. If you could explain the difference between your suggestion and my description of it above, I'd appreciate it (and I apologize if you already have, and I missed it).

I would argue that satisfaction, for a rational person, comes from living a good life. Just to explain what it is I'm nitpicking about: "being successful" implies the achievement of a final, set benchmark (or at least crossing a set threshold). Living a good life implies continuity. You can only derive so much satisfaction from "being successful". But you can derive endless satisfaction from continuously living well. And you don't have to wait before you're satisfied. You can be satisfied with what you did today, even if you're not yet "successful".

I don't understand what you mean. Why are all those details a requirement? Why wouldn't a more abstract argument (describing individual rights) be sufficiently convincing? After all, it convinced you and me. Are we different from other people?

Just two questions: 1. What are the things I would be able to do or accomplish, in this new country, that I'm not able to now? 2. What are the things I wouldn't be able to do or accomplish, that I'm able to now? Answer those, and then I'll decide if going along with your idea would make me more or less free.

I don't think philosophy is all that dissimilar to other ideas through history: man made flight, electricity, combustion engine etc., etc. All these ideas became popular because they resulted in worthwhile concretes. They weren't ideas the general public could've successfully been presented with, in theory alone. There was a need for concrete achievements, to go along with the ideas themselves. So that's the key: to go along with all the activism, people who like the ideas should live good lives, and that achievement will cause interest in the ideas that shaped that life. That doesn't mean activism is useless, but activists need to be conscious of the full range of their communication: both the intended and the unintended messages. For instance, an Oist activist focused on pointing out the flaws of the political system may think he's just communicating political ideas, but, in reality, to the average person, he projects a sense of isolation and even fatalism (us vs. them, as SN put it). When there's a contradiction between a more concrete and a more abstract message, people (rightfully) give more weight to the former. So that activist is hurting more than he's helping. To effectively control the message, and only communicate what he intends to, an activist needs to be well versed in communication and dedicated to the work full time. Even if you're naturally charismatic and an effective leader in your day job, it's not enough. Your message, no matter how convincing, can still be presented selectively, or misrepresented, by others (both in the traditional media and on social media). So you still have to be deliberate about everything you do and discerning about who you talk to...and that takes a lot of expertise and tedious research. Just to be clear: you don't have to be "fun", charming, or even nice and friendly, to be an effective communicator. Trump's an effective communicator...I doubt even his minions would ever accuse him of any of those four things. But you need to be aware of the times when you might be perceived as unhappy or a pessimist (as well as of the many other unintended messages we send out on a daily basis).

I didn't snipe at you is because there's already a bit of a mob engaged in that activity. But just because I don't like joining angry mobs doesn't mean I failed to notice that you're an alt right troll.

McCain is one vote out of 100. By himself, he wouldn't make a difference. The reason why insulting him turned the Senate (including senior Republicans) against Trump is because, as a war hero, a descendant of accomplished American military leaders, and a unifying voice as a politician, John McCain is the most respected member of the Senate, and probably the entire political establishment. Insulting McCain will go down in history as the second biggest blunder of Trump's political career (behind soliciting and accepting help from Russian spies, during the campaign), and one of the main contributing factors to his failed presidency.

I am always careful not to conflate Ayn Rand's ideas with my own. So no, it's not my philosophy. Objectivism is the worst example to use (because there's an inherent contradiction between Objectivism and the act of adopting and practicing someone else's belief system whole sale, and Rand never intended for anyone to do that), so let's switch to the belief system of L. Ron Hubbard, to illustrate my point: Just because you follow L. Ron Hubbard's ideas faithfully, doesn't mean they're now your beliefs. They're still his beliefs. The only belief that is your own could be described as "I will do as L. Ron Hubbard says". That's not what Ayn Rand did, and it's not what she intended for people reading her work to do. She learned from thinkers who came before her, by integrating their ideas, one at a time, into a coherent system all of her own. And then she added original ideas, as well. And she presented all those ideas to the world, for others to use them the same exact way she used other philosophies. I don't know this for sure, but I think she might be horrified by the idea of someone "adopting and practicing" the entire thing. As far as I know, the "cult leader" smear she was given by some is undeserved: she was only intolerant of evasion and stupidity, not disagreement.

Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook questioned the morality of masturbation? When?

Talking about sex has no place outside a church or mosque? And it's not our movement. It's Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Allison is being mentioned as a (long shot) option for Fed chief: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/powell-likely-next-fed-chief-though-yellen-best-suited-economists.html Not very realistic, I would think. Not so much because he's an Objectivist, but because his take on the '08 crisis dismantles the establishment narrative. Trump might like him exactly because of that, but it probably makes him impossible to confirm. As we've seen all year, there's a Senate majority that doesn't need much of an excuse to vote against Trump. They hate him with a passion (insulting John McCain will do that for you).

That's not a very fun-oriented statement you just made there. Quite the opposite. The word "nasty" comes to mind. Are you sure you're looking for fun, and not just trying to use a logical fallacy that goes something like "you're not fun, therefor you're wrong", to criticize Peikoff and Brook?

Your opinion is factually wrong: "The answers given by ethics determine how man should treat other men, and this determines the fourth branch of philosophy: politics, which defines the principles of a proper social system. " - Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs it. There is no room in Ayn Rand's philosophy for racism. Or national socialism. Or nationalism. Or whatever other name you want to give it.

That baby needs to be born, and we need to question it about its politics. We should only get rid of it if we don't like what it has to say for itself.

Like I told the new guy: you're welcome to be a racist, and vilify immigrants with generalized statements that are obviously false. It doesn't really affect anyone. People who think this way are a dime a dozen, but that ideology has no future...because it has no basis in reality, and too many Americans know enough economic migrants from Latin America to know that they're mostly good people...far from the criminals people like you make them out to be. What I would like you to stop doing is cloak yourself in the mantle of Objectivism. Objectivism is 100% antithetical to this ideology, as well as the silly idea of attempting to build a capitalist society by only letting in people who will vote Republican.

The subject at hand isn't why you favor immigration controls. You responded to a post of mine, in which I was quoting Ayn Rand to prove that she disagreed with you. I have done that. Your first paragraph, in which you stay on topic (Ayn Rand's views on immigration) doesn't address immigration controls. Instead, it addresses something Objectivism is in agreement with: having a functional border that keeps out criminals, but allows in economic migrants. So, do you have an argument supporting the notion that Ayn Rand was in favor of immigration controls, or do you concede the point, and admit that immigration controls are a violation of individual rights as per Objectivism?

Sorry, I misread your question. For some reason, I read "violation" instead of "invasion". My bad. So my original reply (before I edited it) was meant to convey that "your laws are a violation of Oist standards". Btw., had I realized that you were asking for the definition of the word "invasion", I wouldn't have replied at all, since you can just google it. You should Google "ad hominem" too. Both you and Skylark are using it wrong.

Germany's invasion of Poland, for instance. ....and, outside alt-right conspiracy land, it's 12 million, not 30.

There's always going to be some subjectivity in IQ tests. Also, the IQ score itself is RELATIVE (to the general population, in any given time and country). So, even if it's not a scam, the score still ll depends on which test you take, the time you take it, and what country you take it in. Personally, if I had any interest in measuring my IQ, I would go with the official Mensa test, or one they approved. A real, in person test, supervised by a psychologist (in the US, it costs $60 to take). Meanwhile, Mensa also has a free, online "IQ test". However, they have an important disclaimer: This test will not calculate an IQ, it will indicate if you could possibly pass the real Mensa test. You should finish this test within 20 minutes. Click onto the "FINISHED" button to calculate your result. https://www.mensa.lu/en/mensa/online-iq-test/online-iq-test.html