moralist

While that is generally true... there is a situation which falls outside of a "social context" where the lies people tell to themselves destroy their own lives. Although, in a broader sense, people lying to themselves is a logical extension of believing the lies of others as well as lying to others within that "social context". "If you closely examine your chains, you will discover they were forged by your own hand."

Understanding the order of physical laws does not create them. Science only discovers the order of physical laws which already exist.

I just watched it tonight (DVD) for the first time, and Galt's face was pretty well shadowed but his left ear was nicely backlit. Sigh... now the wait for the third movie. No movie will ever capture the book, although this one was better than part one.

(duplicate)

There is likely a better word than chaos as all matter follows specific physical laws regardless of its form. Maybe "unformed" is better to reflect the time before the formation of stars and planets. For example, the relationship between an electron and a proton in hydrogen atoms conforms to exactly the same physical law no matter where in the universe they are observed. This is amazing consistent uniformity when you consider the vastness of the universe. This is proof of a literally universal law governing the electron/proton relationship found in the most common element in the universe. Physical law makes the uniform template for all hydrogen atoms possible.

You don't regard 60% behavior of a group as epidemic... and I do.

There's no need for that, Nicky. Evolution is a completely natural phenomenon because it conforms to physical laws.There are two choices regarding the order of specific physical laws which govern the behavior of quarks, and galaxies, and life. They were either designed or they came from random chaos. That choice is a completely open one, and everyone freely chooses for themselves. In the view I chose, the only logical way order can come come out of chaos is for it to follow prexisting laws. There are specific laws which govern the orbit of every electron around the nucleus of every hydrogen atom. For example, from the OP: Even the "weeding out" selection of what works over what does not work is governed by preexisting physical law. There is also another set of well ordered laws that govern human behavior. And those laws also favor the selection of what works over what does not work by consequences of actions.

There are tendencies to relate to Objectivism in religious ways with a similar conformity to doctrine and condemnation of heresy.

It's just you.

The pivotal word is "should". I said nothing about "should". I only referenced what "is". I already posted clear evidence in those charts. The proof of epidemic of personal moral failure is the huge size of government itself. If 60% of a group of people had a disease, any rational person would regard it as an epidemic. You don't regard 60% as an epidemic, so that defines the difference between our two views. There is obviously a disagreement...

I wholly agree... and evolution follows physical laws.

Entertainment. I don't watch television as it's inane, inert, and passive. The virtual world of interactive public television is much more interesting place to visit. If the brain is an adaptation... then a computer is a also an adaptation.

You have a wonderful sense of humor, Dormin!

That's because there aren't any expectations when the number of moochers eating government food matches the personal irresponsibility of not providing it for themselves. I heard this wisdom spoken in a movie: "Expectation is only planned resentment." That's fine. I consider 6 out of 10 dependent on the State to be an epidemic of personal irresponsibility... and you don't. This helps to clarify the contrast between our two views. And since you don't... how many need to be dependent on the government before you regard it as an epidemic? 80%? 100%? Government bureaucracies spend money, and their size is directly proportional to their spending. The vectors on both graphs are perfectly clear. And here again, we each disagree on the growth of the government. To me, it is an accurate indicator of personal moral failure... and for you it is not.

No. Evolution operates entirely within the parameters of physical laws. Why are you trying to argue a point of agreement? It's only terrible for those who disregard the real world consequences of their own actions as being their teacher. For them, it can be downright catastrophic.

Then you can use "we", too. Fair enough. Your point is taken. This is incorrect. I have stated that adults have already freely made their choice of their view, and only the real life consequences of their own actions has the power to change their chosen view. I have offered ample logical reasons for my view. I'd just choose not to argue about it, and instead to let whatever contrast to the views of others stand as it is. Whether or not I'm taken seriously is everyone else's free choice, so it's not my place to try to tamper with the volition of others. My approach is to take the ideas of Ayn Rand seriously enough to make them real by using them in business. That is your free choice. I fully understand that not conforming to the doctrine of Objectivism opens the potential of being labled a heretic just as it would happen in a religion... and I'm ok with that. There is a difference because I came to the writings of Ayn Rand from a completely different direction. Not as virtual theoretical intellectual exercises... but as a literal practical actions which can be put to use in the real world. And I found that in that particular regard, Ayn Ran held all of the trump cards because her methods work as if they were charmed. In my view, you are making my point that the design of the thousand trillion neural connections in the brain is far superior to the computers it designs. And this relationship is born out in reality... for it is the brain which designed the computer.

Who is we? Is there a group for whom you are the elected representative spokesperson? The trait of groupspeak is commonly associated with the left, so it seems uncharacteristically out of place seeing as Ayn Rand was neither a leftist or a statist and even championed the triumph of the individual personal pronoun "I" over the collectivist "we". I take a different approach than you. Instead of arguing and contending, I choose to simply state my view and describe how it differs from the view of others. In this case, my perfectly logical view is that all computers are designed... and that happens to include the most advanced sophisticated supercomputer on this Earth which is light years ahead of all the other computers in existence... I believe that you're ascribing your own motivation to others. I operate on the premise that adults have already chosen their view, and short of a genuine lift threatening or life altering experience they will take their choice and all of its just and deserved consequences with them to their grave. So my stating my view does absolutely nothing to interfere your freedom to argue against it all you wish. I'm content knowing that each one of us gets exactly what they deserve as the results of their choice. This knowledge tends to defuse arguing and contending.

There are 55.5 million K-12 kids in government school. 31 million out of those 55.5 million eat government food. That's almost 60% of all K-12 kids. I regard almost 6 out of ten to be an epidemic. Clearly, you don't. And that's fine... these figures are posted just to demonstrate the difference between our two views. And that's not just government food... it's government food in government schools. This is not the government food stamp program. That's another program. You can track the growth of government by how much money is spent. This chart stops at 2.5 trillion dollars in 2005. Last year, 2012 was 3.6 trillion dollars which is beyond the parameters of the graph. From the nature of your response, you obviously disagree that this is rampant growth of government... so we'll just have to acknowledge that we each have two completely different views regarding the size and growth of government and its direct relation to irresponsible people who fail to govern themselves and need the government to be their mommie. Ayn Rand predicted that this would happen in Atlas Shrugged. Government would continue to tax, regulate, and litigate more and more until it collapses of its own unproductive dead weight. The best any individual American can do is to stand a safe distance away so as not to be brought down along with it.

Just two examples: 46,000,000 people are on government food stamps. 31,000,000 kids eat government food in government schools. This requires a huge government bureaucracy of employed public union looters to service the demands of tens of millions of moochers, just as Ayn Rand predicted. You don't believe that the government just mgaically got that big all by itself for no reason at all, did you? I expect there to continue to be more and more moochers who can't govern their own behavior needing more and more transfer of wealth looters to service them, just as Ayn Rand predicted. Current government debt: $16,618,701,810,927.77 (from debt clock) The need for government is the personal irresponsibility of people who fail to govern themselves, and that need for government is expressed by the size of government. For people have created the government they deserve in their own image.

Your comment opens to another question: Just as it is our own personal responsibility to know not to lie to others... ... is it also our responsibility to know when we are being lied to? For a lie to do harm, it must first be met with a matching willingness to believe it. Lies can possess an irrational "too good to be true" quality to them, so that they can appeal to a complimentary irrational quality of "getting something for nothing". This is like a key and a lock. They must fit together to open the lock. When a person realizes after the fact that they were lied to, it can be a valuable experience to discover the irrationality in them that wanted to believe the lie. This learning experience can make a person less susceptable to being lied to the next time... and there will always be a next time. The less a person lies to others... the less they will believe lies of others.

No... just an objective observation of how the rampant growth of government bureaucracy perfectly tracks with the epidemic of personal irresponsibility.

Since my vocation involves a flow of constant creative adaptation of things to unintended uses... that same approach gets applied everything else. And I see absolutely no conflict between Ayn Rand's principle of selfish interest and the moral principle of doing what's right, because doing what's morally right is always in our best selfish interests. As far as God is concerned, I'm a behaviorist, and not a doctrinaire. God doesn't need anyone's belief. He only wants us to do good because it's good for us to do good. So belief in God is not necessary to love what's right enough to do it, and to enjoy the rewards. Just like the law of gravity... moral law is exactly the same for everyone. It's the same rain which falls equally on the just and the unjust. Whether we drink it or drown in it is totally up to us.

Thanks, Plasma... you caused me to rethink my comment. We always have the freedom to choose to do what's morally right.

I'm tacitly assuming rational adults.

You're right, It is not an argument. It is a only a statement of his view that a terabyte of connections is designed, while a quadrillion connections is not.