thenelli01

Yes.

It is rare to see a billionaire stand up for the so-called "1%" in a public forum. It's sure to bring them grief from socialists complaining of their selfishness, conservatives complaining about their selfishness, and libertarian-commies accusing them of being "crony-capitalists" (sic).  
 
So, it is refreshing to see one billionaire -- Thomas Perkins -- stand up for his wealth-cohort.
 
 
 

A person's character has nothing to do with judging any of their actions to be immoral. Their character, or their having behaved morally for 99.999999% of their lives, has no bearing on whether or not they misbehaved in one specific circumstance. It is illogical to cite a person's character in judging whether or not her slapping someone was immoral according to her own philosophy. It is anti-Objectivist to cite character in such a situation.
 
J

I don't mean to derail the thread or change the subject, but do please share what kind of people you regard as "much worse" than Nazis!!

Concepts such as 'rational' or 'conceptual' condense facts of reality about humans.  You could spend the rest of your life enumerating concrete specific instances for those concepts.  Look at the endless stream of ways in which humans are different from other animals, including specific instances of the facts which give rise to the moral principle of rights.  The more you do that, the less tempted you will be to apply 'conceptual' as some sort of percentage-based litmus test for rights, i.e. if an animal seems sorta conceptual then maybe it sorta has rights.  No, rights are moral principles which arise in a specific and unique context, and animals don't even come close to recreating that context.

If you recognize that the idea of animal rights is 'ridiculous', what makes you think you can change the minds of those who hold such a position?  Leaving aside the problem of 'proving' (showing the connection to self-evident facts of reality) the non-existence of something (i.e. something not in reality), how do you condense an education in the primacy of existence and proper formation and use of concepts to a single writing or conversation?

Better to take the opportunity to practice some philosophic detection and try to figure out where your opponent's most fundamental error is, and see if you can figure out an engaging way to encourage them to rethink it.

Too late. Talk about the slap that launched a thousand words...

For what is perhaps one of the most peaceable, peaceful (no, never pacifist!) and rational bunch of individuals there is probably around, I find it sorta ironic Objectivists spend so much energy arguing over the initiation of force.

Branden didn't lie about aspects of his romantic involvement with Rand. He only lied about his involvement with another woman, and if we accept Dr. Peikoff's position on "privacy lies" being moral, then Branden was being perfectly ethical in lying to Rand, since his affair with Patrecia was none of her business. Branden had no contract of romantic exclusivity with Rand, and was not obliged to inform her of the nature of his relationships with others.

 

 
The issue here is not what an average judge might think under the current mixed-philosophy culture, but what position Objectivism takes. Objectivism doesn't accept "gray areas" just because someone doesn't want to find Ayn Rand guilty of having initiated force. The slap was the initiation of force. The initiation of force is immoral according to Objectivism. The slap was therefore immoral. Objectivism doesn't play favorites by considering who initiated force and whether or not we like them and want to overlook their use of force.

J

Context is king... but the Objectivist Ethics and Politics provide certain absolutes within the context of human interaction and society. So long as all of the parties involved are human (and I think so?), and so long as we're dealing with "force" and not mere romantic symbolism, or "free speech," or such (which is the only real bone of contention, imo), then we have context enough to assess the situation without trying to further sort out the sordid details of their affair-turned-sour. He (or she) who initiates the use of force is in the wrong to do so, full stop.

Or as Rand would have put it, when calm and reasonable:
 
You may continue to discuss the underlying issues under the banner of "context," if you choose, but I consider the above to hold that discussion as "inappropriate" in this case.

“Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity.”   -   Friedrich Nietzsche

Which is only rational and proper. There are usually early stages of a business contract in which all parties act in good faith on verbal agreements alone. If it could be shown that one has intended to deceive from the off (costing others financially, or in their potential earnings) then certainly there could be a case against him for fraud. (Although a less straightforward link, it is "Physical force", I'd think).
thenelli brought in mostly social examples of lying, and those I don't consider fraudulent, legally. "Man's nature as a rational being" includes his volitional consciousness, and this infers voluntarism in his judgments in the face of deceit. Government can't save you from yourself, in short. That's the intent of nanny-Statism.

That's not a valid analogy. 12 yos are generally not held criminally liable for their actions, at least not to the extent adults are. Drunk adults, on the other hand, most definitely are.

I dislike the phrase "coming out of the closet", as it implies that he has some obligation to tell the world. More specifically, it implies that gays, by default, are trapped in a closet, hiding their sexuality. Hiding it from whom? Society, of course. And society demands that information as if they have some kind of right to it. If you are gay or whatever, great. Embrace it and enjoy life, but why does he have to announce it and tell the whole world (including random strangers, acquaintances, etc.)?  The only reasons I could think of why gays might want to "come out" is:
 
1) to meet other gays or people on the "DL" (because I recognize how hard it is for gays to find quality relationships, which is largely accountable for their promiscuity).
 
2) to normalize the idea of people being gay in culture and help other gays that are struggling (be a role model, show that gays aren't all like how they are generalized, help end gay bashing, etc.).
 
3) to feel completely yourself, like you aren't "hiding" anything (because most times you are assumed to be straight unless you are blatantly feminine).
 
But, I oppose this whole notion that anyone has a right to the information or that it is so significant that an announcement needs to be made. Society clearly isn't at the point (yet) where this is completely understood, which is why I hold #2 as the best reason to make an announcement.  A few more NBA players or NFL stars coming out might transform "coming out" announcements into more of a nuisance than a news story. I am looking forward to that day.

None of these are exactly on your topic, but they're closely related:
 
James Grant has a book titled "Money of the Mind" that is related to the topic, but is a bit like a series of essays than a book with chapters. Nevertheless, interesting reading. 
 
"Lombard Street" - by Walter Bagehot is a classic, dealing with the Bank of England's early days: how it acted as de facto central banker, and how it handled bank runs that happened every decade or two in gold-based fractional-banking systems.
 
For a more detailed understanding of how the Bank of England came to be (might be too detailed, depending on your purpose): History of the Bank of England, - Andreas Michael Andreades
 
Despite it's misleading title, Benjamin Anderson's "Economics and the Public Welfare" covers the post FED handling. It has a short bit on the handling of the post WW1 recession, when the FED was still not quite established and things were handled in a more or less traditional way, and then the handling of the great Depression. He also narrates how Britain and France went off gold. The downside of the book is that the author does not spend enough time drawing out principles, leaving that hard work to the reader. Still, a must-read for anyone interested in business-cycles, and the related central-bank and fiscal responses.

http://mises.org/document/1022
 
History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II Murray N. Rothbard  
The master teacher of American economic history covers money and banking in the whole of American history, to show that the meltdown of our times is hardly the first. And guess what caused them in the past? Paper money, loose credit, reckless lending standards, government profligacy, and central banking
 
When will we learn? When people understand the cause and effect in the history of these repeating calamities
 
In a complete revision of the standard account, Rothbard traces inflations, banking panics, and money meltdowns from the Colonial Period through the mid-20th century to show how government's systematic war on sound money is the hidden force behind nearly all major economic calamities in American history. Never has the story of money and banking been told with such rhetorical power and theoretical vigor.
Here is how this book came to be. Rothbard died in 1995, leaving many people to wish that he had written a historical treatise on this topic. But the the archives assisted: Rothbard had in fact left several large manuscripts dedicated to American banking history.
 
In the course of his career, meanwhile, he had published other pieces along the same lines, but they appeared in venues not readily accessible. Given the desperate need for a single volume that covers the topic, the Mises Institute put together this thrilling book. So seamless is the style and argument, and comprehensive is coverage, that it might as well have been written in exactly the format.
 
 

Except that I did define brainwashing before, in another thread, and made reference to it in this one. If you were interested in my argument in any way, you would've either looked for the other thread or asked me what's in it. Not falsely (and ridiculously) assumed that the term "brainwashing" is undefinable.  
Hardly a logical argument, going around declaring words other people use "undefinable", now is it?
Association fallacy. Collectivists use force, you want to use force, ergo you're a collectivist. I suppose I'm a rabbit too. Rabbits have hair, and so do I.
Guess who else has hair: people. Guess who else uses force: Objectivists. Objectivism proudly advocates the use of force to protect individual rights, including those of children.
By my count, you're up to four: the argument from intimidation ("worst kind of collectivism", the slippery slope one, the argument from association, and then there's the one where you randomly decided that a word I used is "undefinable".
Not sure what this last one is called. Might not even have a name. These informal fallacies were listed and named to help people recognize errors. But does anyone really need help figuring out why declaring words an opponent used as "undefinable" is not a valid argument?

Well my own research focuses on the National banking period in particular (1863-1913), so that's what I know the most about, but that is also when most of the nationwide panics occurred, so that might be of interest to you.  There's a good paper available here that gives an introduction to the regulatory structure of the national banking system, by Bruce Champ . There are also a few other papers in that series that discuss the national bank note puzzle and silver certificates.  Also, Banking Panics of the Gilded Age is the most recent comprehensive study of financial panics during the National Banking period, and the role of the New York clearinghouse in responding to the panics.  It's a bit academic, but it might also be interesting to the layman. Here is an online article on the National Banking period that provides a brief overview and also cites numerous other academic sources.
 
Hopefully in a year or so I'll have a paper out on one particular financial panic during this period.

Your note was unnecessary. Also, you should say "Rationalistic" or "Rationalist" not Platonist.  
 
Anyways, if they intend on talking about politics with their friends during these coffee breaks then I wouldn't attend. It sounds like they are staging a left-wing echo chamber for themselves. If they can go without talking about politics then I would be fine. 
 
So talking to people. I am not saying I am an exemplar of these virtues but they make sense to me. 
 
 Charity: Most people aren't very well read nor are they very good at express their own ideas. If someone says something that sounds really weird or wrong, I tend to give the best interpretation of the argument I can.  If someone is clearly too ignorant to be speaking about a subject, just tell them so, and if you think they can improve refer them to some material. 
 
 Honesty: Don't pretend you know about things that you don't. If you disagree with an idea, give the reasons or facts that cause you to disagree, but don't ever inflate your understanding of an issue. If they provide you with alternative explanations or point a whole in your idea, its okay to tell them that you will have to think about it. "Winning the Argument" is not important, because people can be wrong and win argument and people can be right and lose arguments.
 
 Politeness: Don't bully others. Let them finish their points as long as they are going somewhere, and try not to interrupt.  The main reason most people don't want to talk about politics is because most people interested in politics are bullies who don't have any power in the real world so they attempt to make other people feel bad for disagreeing with their world view. No one will want to talk about bullies if you go into it attempting to punish or humiliate others. 
 
 Pride: Have a goal for the conversation, make sure it contributes to your well being. Pride means moral ambition, so make sure that those conversations about important topics are conducted in such a way. Some people will exhibit toxic behavior. They may not be able to handle conflict or they may wish to bring up irrelevant concerns and attempt to intimidate you away from reasonable conclusions.  Let your standards be known and shut down the conversation if you have to. If someone is spending time personally attacking you then they aren't interested in discussion but intimidation. 
  

Full article: http://gladstoneinstitutes.org/node/11439

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. 

Fairness often means egalitarianism, but fairness can also refer to those who receive what they don't deserve. If you get promoted for a job, but are a bad employee, that's unfair. If a corporation receives subsidies for simply being an important industry, that's unfair. Of course existing in a mixed economy screws with wealth and who deserves what, but here, we're talking about unfairness, not merely someone having more. So, since people brought about an unfair aspect in society (laws, norms, etc), it's okay to say that this is absolutely unfair, and it sucks, thanks to a mixed economy. If the kid born into wealth doesn't acknowledge that the wealth is actually largely acquired through favoritism and injust practices, that can be something like privilege by not realizing unfairness exists.

Still, where you're born is outside of morality because there is no "deserving" before you're even born. The way I see it, people are born into different levels of money, places, time periods, technology, etc, this is just a fact of life. Genetics aren't unfair either, people are just different. If someone has more, strive for more! If someone has more because of the norms of society, condemn those norms.

This fact? What fact? There were no facts in that Al-Jazeera article. Only a monumental lie. You went to a source written by known liars, read an epic lie, and it made you sad.
 
Now that's a fact that should make you sad. 

Imho, this disagreement is basic enough that it's within the mods purview to settle it. So, if a kind mod would please just look into this: Of prisoners serving life sentences without parole in the US, what percentage committed non-violent crimes? Is it 6%, or is it 79%?
 
Given how easy it is to answer that question, I think whichever one of us is in "error", and is continuing to insist that he's right, is trolling and should kindly be asked to knock it out.

Recursive? I think this was already discussed here.

Yes it was. Also, I think some states already had prohibition within the state.  
According to the Wikipedia, it seems that the loose (and faulty) interpretation of the commerce clause made such amendments unnecessary.
During the New Deal the commerce clause was interpreted to allow the Federal government to pretty much regulate any commerce.
Aside: FDR should take the blame, because his threats to pack the SCOTUS are seen as the reason they bent to his will on the subject. U.S.'s worst-ever president lives on.

I think any layperson who has studied three months worth of middle school Physics would describe taking an apple off a tree as the use of physical force. Any tree: Ethics and Politics have nothing to do with it, it's physics: to move an apple, you use force.
If it's the neighbor's tree, then you're using the physical force AGAINST the neighbor.