tadmjones

As far as I know she never uttered (or wrote) a word on the topic.
Somewhere I saw a report (from Peikoff, I think) that Rand was uncomfortable with the whole notion of IQ (i.e. of innate intellectual capacity). She was more at home with the belief that it was all a matter of developing the right cognitive habits. She never went public with her belief (if indeed it was her belief), so this line of inquiry is not likely to lead anywhere interesting. If IQ is not innate like eye color, eugenics is not going to do any good.
Not sure what you mean by "Spencerian". The Objectivist literature has very little to say about him, and that unfavorable. I don't know much about him myself, but people I respect (the late George Smith in particular) say that the popular understanding of Spencer is a gross misrepresentation. His "survival of the fittest" applies to practices and business ventures, not to people, and is in any case a tautology: fitness is the ability to survive; what survives is thereby fit. The Objectivists seem to have believed the popular and putatively inaccurate account.

Slight aside, I note Rand was quite good at wide integrations, and her seeing through false dichotomies, more than one of them in fact, was always breathtaking.
Many criticized Marxist Utopias by assuming their failure and evil outcomes was rooted in human failings to implement the system faithfully, Rand rightly noted their fundamental ideas were themselves evil.
A modern Objectivist cannot but help to notice that our mixed economy, bloated paternalistic government, increasingly socialist and authoritarian, wasteful, and corrupt institutions are a failure to meet the founding fathers explicit vision of the republic, which no matter how far short of an Objectivist utopia, is revelatory, true and Good.
Rand noted America had not ever met her full potential, never ripened to what she could and should be, but nonetheless she paid homage and great respect for her founders vision, adjudging that Republic as the greatest system ever conceived and executed heretofore.  She did bemoan her fall and criticized both parties contemporary to her time, the so-called left and right parties which she rightly saw as being little different and in fact is the main reason she lambasted the right, for all its posturing towards individual freedom revealed all the more, its hypocrisy and dishonesty. 
So she blasted one false dichotomy, of theory versus practicality in the context of utopian politics, out of the water, as well as another false dichotomy (of policy) between the so called left and right.
What is more impressive for her revelations is that she did this in spite of common and widely held beliefs in the culture, in academia, portrayed and disseminated by the “authorities” and the media.  In her time she was what modern spin doctors would call a conspiracy theorist, and to give them their due, those doctors have identified that indeed sometimes reality and human nature, incentive structures, imbalance and control of information can “conspire” to present a picture which is misleading.  They err in prescribing blind obedience and acceptance rather than further close inspection of reality. 
She was truly a rebel and yes a radical like no other.
I wonder why so many modern Objectivists, seem not to have taken on her approach of seeing through the false dichotomies, of making wider integrations than what the predominant culture is feeding us, of seeing beyond the narratives of theory versus practicality, left versus right, of seeing where real and complex forces of human nature and power lead institutions and nations, of being brave in the face of those who attack bold unpopular ideas.  

I think it has to do with the statistically predominant life experience the type of person who becomes a philosopher comes from.  Not all but most are sheltered, insular, academic and the same kind of errors (albeit of different content) which afflicted the Marxist Utopians, afflicts the Objectivist philosophers, it is as if “all we need is a globe of perfect rational humans then our institutions, laws, and systems, nations, trade, agreements, industries, local and global infrastructure, shipping, energy and food will all work…”
and perhaps it would, but it wont.
It cannot succeed, the systems that will succeed must take into account the global and human realities as well as the current state of things…  it must be formed to take us from here, not to assume we are somewhere we are not or never will be… and it must be focused on the Republic itself not a universal utopia which lies centuries if not millennia forward.
I wonder what Rand would say if she had lived through all the years since her death, observing, thinking, integrating, in her non naive rebellious way, what she would have to say about the best way forward given all the threats, in all their forms, throughout the world and from within.  
 
She certainly would find any fault, any little error, with the remedial cures being put in place but for sure she would be fully cognizant of the complex situation of the present moment and have a good view of the path forward.

Miller's translation of and commentary upon De Anima and other psychological works of Aristotle was enormously helpful to me in composing the Aristotle Part of my study Metaphysics and Geometry.

Apparently, Donald Trump has ordered the release of 80,000 pages of unredacted documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy, a subject that has busied conspiracy nuts for decades.

Spoiler Alert: No matter what those papers say, it won't make a damned bit of difference for a certain type of person, whose archetype is Trump's head of health and human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

I have no patience with the many predicatable excuses conspiracy nuts spew for ignoring and evading documentary evidence, so we won't wallow in them here, but there is still a fair question for me: How do you know these documents won't make a difference?
Image by the HHS, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.Kennedy's nephew, Bobby, has graciously provided the answer already, in the form of the recent announcement that his CDC is going to waste our money studying the long-discredited "link" between vaccinations and autism:Interestingly, the scientific literature already consists of a number of pages comparable to the Kennedy papers about this very subject:That was four years ago: I got 77,000 just now for "vaccine AND autism".

Even if only a third of the cited number are papers are primarily about this subject, if each is only four pages long, that's still over 50,000 pages!

Does Bobby Kennedy not know about this literature? Does he not care about it? Is he unable to process it rationally? Is he deliberately ignoring it? He happily imputes bad motives to vaccine makers: Is this a case of the pot calling a spotless chalice a black kettle?

I don't know and I don't care why this unqualified non-scientist won't see or admit the truth, but I'd say he proves my point.

-- CAVLink to Original

Brook has recommended this, and I pass it along with a second:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-thinks-ayn-rand-071948623.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

You don't know your own economy. US wages are not keeping up with economic growth, even after they're adjusted for inflation ("real" here means after adjusting for inflation):

Some of it is due to demographic changes and rise in medical cost (which is also partly a political problem), but the biggest mathematical reason is that:
The situation becomes clearer if you compare hourly wages (plus all indirect benefits) to hourly worker productivity:

And the reason this is happening is political:
It is due to the political influence of corporations. US institutions today are much more extractive than several decades ago.

I am honored that one of my poems has been selected for inclusion in Invisible Poets – Anthology 3, strong wave after wave of human skill, genius, delight, and altogether hope. Amazing

An O’ist perspective recognizes that force is only morally used when it is directed by non-initiators and used only against initiators of force. Government’s proper role is as the sole legitimate organ of force aimed at the retaliation of initiation of force.
Objective law should be the standard that constrains the actions of government , democracy or majority rule writ large can not be a reliable objective hedge against immoral (violations of individual rights) actions of the monopoly of ‘legal’ force.
Political power and government force are inversely proportional a government that uses force of arms to ‘keep order’ operates from a position devoid of political power with which to maintain and carry out ‘their’ dictates. Not having the political power may be from dictates incongruent with citizens’ wellbeing or from a plurality of citizens trying to ‘undone’ a previously established ‘order’.
Rand gives a moral foundation to capitalism by virtue of establishing and conducting a government based on the principle of protection of individual rights. Abstract moral conceptions are ‘easier’ to identify than to practice, lol.

The lethal ideology is divisive. Hands up, anyone, who lost friendships in this way. It divides because it is intended to divide, and - in the main - its adherents are intellectually unaware it is an ideology.
Saad relates a recent experience.
https://youtu.be/XHHLY5wgas4?si=B823BHo5k2rGlSNR
 

Depends on the HOA,lol. And maybe the kinds of guns and how you know he has recently acquired them. Context is important , if he casually mentions a new interest in game hunting and they are firearms suitable for hunting , that would be different then if he ‘quietly’ purchases an A1 tank , demonstrates it is not decommissioned and parks it with the torrent aimed at your front door.

The latter. It was a change in the relationship between government and industry and the relationship between the government and labor. It started with the circumstance that to obtain long distances of land for rail at a feasible price, the Eminent Domain clause of the Constitution had to be invoked. The story of this juncture and transition from a close-to free market economy to a regulated one is told in the book Capitalism in America – A History (2018) by Alan Greenspan and Adrian Wooldridge. The Nat Taggart sort had rail companies with more money than the US government. They bought legislatures and courts and got great influence in the Congress and President. Dagny would be running a transcontinental railroad with all the federal regulations and unionization and federal interventions in strikes that had accumulated by 1957, and that was a lot, even without the future government controls envisioned in the story. What actually happen in the real US future was the establishment of the Federal Railroad Administration and the demise of passenger long-distance rail service due to competition from US interstate highways and commercial passenger airlines. And for tort cases against railway companies (deep pockets), the law students' humorous heuristic "Railroad loses."

What caused the change from unregulated to post railroad expansion , a change in the way markets 'work' or the character of the government whose jurisdiction encompassed the actions of the market?

Ancient Hindu texts like the Rigveda mention iron and other metals. Rough(ish) dating of the written Rigveda makes it about 2500 years old, but the Vedas themselves are based on 'ancient' knowledge, seems right

In the context of military capability, one lacking the cognizance to recognize relative strength would be ignorant , those who do understand the relative strengths and advocate for 'unwinnable' actions are evading the discussion of the relative strengths.
My claims are rather 'neutral', I've stated my prevailing view as a quasi-civil war and Khrushchev's fault anyway.

Or: Down, But Not Out

The first part of this week was already going to be hectic for me, but I fell ill Friday on top of everything. I'm better, but have a weekend's worth of chores and errands to catch up on, and, if my improved health holds up, a Mardi Gras parade ride to do Tuesday.

That opportunity comes courtesy of a relative who is a member of one of the krewes that put on the parades. That will have me busy from the wee hours until the end of that parade Tuesday. And then there's a ball, which my wife is looking forward to.

While I am happy to learn even more about this new-to-me local holiday, and am grateful for the chance to participate in this way, I can't help but remember a parting comment I wrote comparing Christmas to Mardi Gras:It is astounding how much time and effort go into these festivities -- as one can say about almost any field of endeavor one hasn't given much thought about in the past. I'll enjoy tomorrow, but would I want to do something like that every year? I have no idea, but lean to no as I am pretty introverted.

But the beauty is that there is no pressure to do anything, as far as I can tell. It's up to everyone to take it as far as they want or to leave it altogether, aside from the matter of joining a krewe, which I understand, can be an inscrutable process.

As I also said then:Happy Mardi Gras, and I'll be back here Wednesday.

-- CAVLink to Original

Russia invaded Ukraine under Obama and Biden, they must be lapdogs too.
In a realpolitiks sense how does that work ? The number three(arguably) power installs lapdogs as leaders of the number one power? How or why would the leader of the number one power remain beholden to number three? Basically we would have to assume that the US isn't the real number one power in the world, so I guess 'we were always at war with Eastasia' and America is a subservient nation. Or more objectively, that the identity of power means that the Number One guy is number one and could never be beholden to a lesser power.
Even if Putin manipulated US presidential elections to 'install' his lapdog and the US really is the world's most powerful nation, how would he be confident he could run his dog? Literally how would such a ridiculous situation manifest?
The only conceivable way would be that the US isn't the number one power....or that the President doesn't have power over the country the way 'we' all believe.
"Hey toadie, I'm going to make you the most powerful person in the world, but you will do as I say"

People on the Left keep repeating "Russia was the aggressor," as some kind of mantra, which makes me suspicious.
It seems like the idea that "sending an army across a border is always morally wrong" is being held as some kind of Platonic absolute, independent of any context. The reasoning seems to be that if nobody ever sent an army across a border, there would never be any wars. It suggests that a country can do anything it wants as long as it stays within its own borders.
I think this idea is a product of UN-based "internationalism" and is not correct. It does not represent a protection of individual rights. For one thing it gives a blank check to dictatorships, who according to this can abuse their own people in any manner they wish, without fear of being held to account by any foreign government. This is contrary to Ayn Rand's principle that a dictatorship has no right to exist, a principle that would also apply even if the government decided to be dictatorial in only part of its territory, or toward only certain ethnic groups.
For another, it gives a blank check for indirect force, such as threats or fraud. (The same thing comes from the Left with regard to other issues, where they can attack you in almost any way they wish, and then say it's "force, but not violence," but then if you defend yourself, that's "violence." Ayn Rand wrote about that one, too.)
The people who cling to this idea seem to want to suppress any facts that might explain why Russia invaded Ukraine. "Oh, that's irrelevant," they say, "because sending an army across a border is always morally wrong, so it doesn't matter what any other facts are." So they feel justified in evading and censoring those facts.
This seems to be indicative of an intrinsicist approach to ethics and politics as opposed to an objective one.

I don't have anything good to say about Russia, but I can say this much: The EU has threatened to cancel elections that don't go their way, and they did cancel one in Romania because it didn't go their way. Both Germany and the UK imprison people for expressing their opinions -- which is purely political imprisonment. The EU also intimidates American companies away from free speech. The UK has even threatened to try to extradite Americans for speech. So NATO is actively betraying US values. Why, then, are we the US subsidizing them? They act not like they are counting on us, but like they are holding something over us. Maybe this is the kind of "entangling alliance" that Thomas Jefferson warned about?
We should leave NATO and let them fend for themselves.

Hi All
I do not visit often (I tend to hang around Quora and Physics Forums more) but Peterson Academy has a course by Yaron Brook on The Nature of Capitalism I am greatly enjoying.
Just thought I would let people here know.
Thanks
Bill

Well but maybe just the parts of Europe that speak Russian and belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, actually I bet those places are most in Russian sights.

The US regime during the prosecution of Russia’s war against Ukraine was committed to ensuring Ukraine could resist Russian aggression for as long as it took to exhaust Ukraine. The major evasion of those who backed those policies was in ignoring the realistic outcome of a ‘total’ war between Russia and Ukraine. In reality the pledge was to participate in the destruction of the Ukraine.
I’m sure there will be apologists in the ‘after action’ reports that will try and claim the US aid, of course well and below adding significant manpower to the conflict, had the ‘good’ outcome of decimating Russian military forces. Even allowing the ole timey military terminology defining decimation by a reduction of troop levels by 10% , which it seems could be the case in personnel numbers lost, it doesn’t actually equate to reducing Russia’s military present and immediately available capabilities to ole timey ‘decimation’.
How is the precise outcome not going to be one wholly foreseeable, without the evasion?
Everybody thought it would be a good thing to get the Ukraine ground up, apparently.

The US regime during the prosecution of Russia’s war against Ukraine was committed to ensuring Ukraine could resist Russian aggression for as long as it took to exhaust Ukraine. The major evasion of those who backed those policies was in ignoring the realistic outcome of a ‘total’ war between Russia and Ukraine. In reality the pledge was to participate in the destruction of the Ukraine.
I’m sure there will be apologists in the ‘after action’ reports that will try and claim the US aid, of course well and below adding significant manpower to the conflict, had the ‘good’ outcome of decimating Russian military forces. Even allowing the ole timey military terminology defining decimation by a reduction of troop levels by 10% , which it seems could be the case in personnel numbers lost, it doesn’t actually equate to reducing Russia’s military present and immediately available capabilities to ole timey ‘decimation’.
How is the precise outcome not going to be one wholly foreseeable, without the evasion?
Everybody thought it would be a good thing to get the Ukraine ground up, apparently.

That is definitely a song that 'hits' when heard, dontcha just relish the connection/interactions, real art
Looking at it a found this about the writer , Roberta as his impeccable instrument ,RIP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewan_MacColl

First Time
Roberta Flack died today 2/24/24
My first love

No, what distinguishes capitalism specifically is ownership: private and especially corporate ownership (private ownership of most things [that are not companies/corporations/means-of-production] also exists in socialist economies). Corporate ownership (through ownership of shares) and other abstract forms of ownership are specifically what distinguishes capitalism. People have been producing and trading long before capitalism was a thing.
That idea involves a specific understanding of consent, especially in the context of the role that a government plays in society. Not everything the government does involves force. Governments can also be a form of self-governance and collective action. Nordic countries have a great deal of trust in government institutions and action and what the government does with their tax money. Consent isn't when "government implements capitalism", everything else being force. The degree of consent that people experience regarding what their government does has a lot more to do with trust in institutions and corruption levels and whether people think that their government is spending their money appropriately as well as the level of decentralization and self-governance and democracy involved. Unlike the centralized "executive order" decision making of the US, Nordic countries have institutions for decentralized decision making and self-governance. Nordic countries do way better on the Corruption Perceptions Index than the US. They experience a greater degree of consent in the role that their government plays in their society than the people of United States. It's not forceful. It's self-governance.
Also, I wasn't asking an ideological question. I grew up reading Ayn Rand and already know the ideological reason you oppose statism. I was asking about empirical reasons behind opposing Welfare states in Nordic countries. You specifically said "corporations have a lot of resources to devote to pressure-group warfare" in mixed economies. This is empirically false. Nordic countries have way less corruption (including "pressure-group warfare" from corporations) than the US. And it's not just Nordic countries.
It doesn't matter if US hasn't achieved perfect capitalism. Perfect capitalism is just an ideology and may not be implementable. Being an approximation is enough for US to be considered capitalist.