thenelli01

I'm not so sure of this. I think you should, if you haven't already, listen to her interview outside of the experiment in that very video. She thinks all white people are conditioned to believe in white superiority and that (I'm paraphrasing): if you graduated high school, and you aren't a racist, it is a miracle. It's determinism, essentially. That is what the premise of the experiment is. And if you listen to interviews outside that video, she even claims that she is still a racist and it will take her whole life to rid herself of it. Is this stated explicitly somewhere by the experimenters, or is this your own interpretation? If it is stated by the experimenters (i.e. those who designed it), then I might have a different view. But, from my view, the people who quit were seen as close-minded white folks - not that they "got it". Listen to the people providing commentary on the experiment as it is going on. To those people that quit or objected - they were called close-minded, that they don't understand racism exists, and that they don't accept that discrimination is going on. You are right, though, the people who did not participate were the ones that did get it. But do you have any evidence that the experiment is intended to fit that interpretation and that the experimenters came to that conclusion, instead of the conclusion that they are "in denial"? Does that really mean that he doesn't "have the capacity to form [his] own argument"? More likely is that he saw it on a forum (if he is not the poster on the other website) and wanted to see the way Objectivists would respond to such an argument. Granted, he should have noted that in the OP.

I am looking for a book that gives a detailed account of history of banking and regulations in the United States. One that specifically addresses the "frequent bank crashes" before heavy regulation. Period from 1790-1930's. Any suggestions?

Economics: Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. Ethics: The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand Politics: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand All are books with short chapters, so it won't be exhaustive reading. I think those are a good place to start.

I don't think the blue-eyed group were upset that they were getting discriminated against. They were upset that the experiment assumed that they were racist (by Jane Elliot's own admission) and assumed that they didn't understand what it meant to be discriminated against. The video wasn't eye opening or revealing, it was racist and disgusting. I think it might be useful for people who admittedly think that racism isn't a problem or not a big deal, but not for someone like me. I don't need to be psychologically spit on for my race to understand what it means to be psychologically spit on.

There is no such thing as unearned racism. I am not a racist by virtue of being white.

Of course it is censorship. There is no such thing as "the right to individual dignity." Actually, you should go and read its definition. This is how it is defined in the LA Constitution: The LA Constitution simply means "equality under the law." The poster was lying, or willfully ignorant at best. Actually, if you go even further, the LA Constitution actually supports A&E's right to fire: There is a crucial distinction between censorship and freedom of association. Censorship is the initiation of force to silence someone. Freedom of association is the ability to choose who you want to associate, or trade, with.

Thank you . It's a dream come true.

This morning I was offered a job for my first internship at a big firm. Starts in the Summer .

Hello - I have been very interested in pursuing both of these, and now that I have some free time, I plan to start. I was hoping someone might have some suggestions on where to start (besides suggesting to take a class). Thank you.

Doesn't this apply to any moral evaluation? If you want to discuss whether Rand's actions are in line with Objectivist principles, you need to, as with any moral evaluation, gather the relevant facts and identify the principles involved. I wouldn't recommend accepting the premise that she had a moral failing, I recommend not debating these people until they accept the premise that it says nothing about the philosophy of Objectivism. If their topic is "Rand is immoral, she cheated on her husband!" I think it is fine to get into a discussion with them about it. Or "Rand is a fraud, she accepted SS!" It is appropriate to discuss whether this was consistent with Objectivism or not, etc. But, if the topic is "Rand is immoral, she cheated on her husband, therefore Objectivism is false," I wouldn't debate with them about her cheating on her husband until they accept the premise that it isn't true that Objectivism's truth is dependent on this issue. You don't lower your standard of debate (i.e. evade logic) because people won't understand you. If they don't understand you, come up with ways to communicate it more effectively. But, my guess is that nothing you can say to these people - specifically the one's on the internet - will make them understand because they don't want to understand.

I don't see how because Rand says "and I mean it", that means that she will automatically follow the principles of Objectivism and, therefore, we have to defend her every action and come up with reasons why she didn't violate any principles. I think dismissing people as committing a logical fallacy when they smear her in place of an argument against Objectivist principles is enough. By debating with them, you are accepting the premise that this is a valid argument against Objectivism (unless you get them to accept that it is a logical fallacy, first).

Would this be like scorning whites for a "white privilege" instead of going after the specific people who are acting as racists? Instead of attacking the specific perpetrators (i.e. government and the people that support the policy), you blame the child who is benefitting from said policies.

User Actions Following Harry Binswanger‏@HBinswanger If you've not heard, Barbara Branden has died. Not exactly sad news.

I have enjoyed reading many of her posts on OL. Very thoughtful, clear and concise.

I am referring to examples where the situation was caused by unfair government policies. If a situation was caused by an agent (the government) through unfair means, then the situation is unfair. Can we properly apply this and say it is unfair that children are unable to enjoy the wealth their family would have had (or does have) if it were not for such polices? Or it is unfair that children of parents who believe and advocate for subsidies are able to enjoy the wealth that their family wouldn't have had if it were not for such policies? Or is this getting close to the idea of original sin?

I wasn't meaning fair to mean "equality of results". I agree that fairness is grounded in justice. I recommend reading this article, which differentiates the two: http://objectivismforintellectuals.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/206/ Fairness is accurately measuring a certain attribute(s) in question. When government policies interfere in the free market, the amount of wealth owned by a person (and family) can be unfair because they use force to make man unable to (or able to) acquire wealth he wouldn't have had before. If a man's wealth is less than it would have been because of unfair government policies such as minimum wage laws (like in the example in the OP), then his resulting economic situation is unjust. Here is an example that was given in the article: I'm speaking of situations where the child of the wealthy family DOES have the benefits of the wealth at the expense of the child of the poor family.

The condition to which you are born in is a metaphysical fact and outside the realm of morality. How does this apply in a mixed economy? For example: the inner city man who was kept in the poverty by the minimum wage laws, which made it impossible to get a job as a teen because no one would hire him. As a result, he didn't learn skills at a young age and therefore, didn't rise as he would have if the minimum wage laws did not exist. He had a child and the child was also born in poverty. This is opposed to the wealthy man who kept his wealth through government subsidies and laws, which he believed in and advocated for. He had a child and the child was born into wealth. What is your opinion on this? Is it fair for the child? If there can be identified direct injustices done to the parents that lowers the standard of the living of the child than would have other been, can we say that it is unfair?

Not necessarily. What about the town are you attached to?

Isn't utility the source of all values? If it's not useful to accomplishing your goal (your life and happiness), then how can it be a value? Knowledge doesn't have intrinsic value outside of the context of your life.

That's not what you said though. If you think his definition of perfection is wrong, then attack that, don't claim perfection to be a myth. It is confusing to him and other people reading this thread. Conflating perfect with omniscient is the issue. It sets up man with an unattainable goal that he could never achieve. It sets up issues like in the OP - a state of paralysis. Perfection in the context of man qua man is to consciously always use reason to make decisions within the context of your knowledge. That is the goal you should shoot for.

Perfection, I take to mean, is consciously always making rational decisions within the context of your knowledge. It's not a myth. Just because we aren't omniscient or we don't know the exact outcome, that doesn't mean there isn't an objectively right (or perfect) method of decision making. First, indecision is a decision! You say you can't decide to commit suicide, but you are still here, aren't you? See a psychiatrist asap.

Yes, when someone is a value to you, they are necessarily useful in accomplishing a goal. They wouldn't be a value if they weren't useful in accomplishing the ultimate value of man's life and happiness. Maybe you can elaborate exactly what you mean on this point and why you think I am using the concept(s) incorrectly.

Why is it rationally egoistic?

This presumes that utility only applies to the material realm. The only rational reason to have friendships is utility. It is an exchange of values and is beneficial, if not necessary, to the happiness of man's soul. If someone is not useful to you, then what rational reason is there to form and sustain a friendship?

If you want to use "nihilistic" in this manner, then you can also say "Objectivists are nihilistic towards collectivism, they despise it."