Harrison Danneskjold

Nice try, although I do find it flattering that you are so interested in my "principles."

I would feel comfortable, yes. Why wouldn't I? Feeling uncomfortable is usually a lousy reason to not do something, anyway. Either way, you need to know why you're uncomfortable in order to use it as an argument.

Most people think poop smells gross. There are probably scientific reasons for this. But, if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else -- as you can from the company of nudity, as you can with anything that you find unappealing. But, experience tells me most unappealing things are easy to ignore in person. Besides, there are plenty of unappealing people *clothed*.

There is no justification either for rules mandating clothing or rules forcing private property owners not to contract with "entrants" how they are to dress on private property..
 
Places defined as "public" per se may not even be justified... 
 
 
In a proper society there would be private property and unowned property... no "public property". 
 
In "unowned property" something like "rules about clothes" would be unenforceable, no initiation of force, while on private property there may be conditions voluntarily agreed to between the property owner and the person passing through but those are all voluntary and contractual.

Well, I like the way Wikipedia sums it up:

Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.

I think that every Objectivist needs to agree with the above to label oneself as such. But as I said in my previous post, this does not mention anything about Ayn Rand's word being infallible. I think that her comments on homosexuality are a pertinent example of this, and it also represents the dangers of having O'ism being a closed system.

So, those fundamental truths, more explicitly, are the axioms that uphold the Objectivist epistemology, views of metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. We know those truths are indeed fundamental because axioms - as their nature implies - are irrefutable. Anyone trying to object to them must implicitly assume them even before he or she can formulate a counter-argument. No, there are no fundamental truths that are not part of Objectivism. I think that there ARE parts of Objectivism, according to Peikoff and the ARI, that are not necessarily fundamental truths. I, like Kelley, do not believe that Ayn Rand is infallible. Objectivism, on the other hand, definitely is infallible.

I think her very first sentence said it all VERY clearly:


Right there, she has said plainly that following objectism IMPROVED her life, and goes onto say that not following it has caused deterioration... until the point where she is engaging in horrible reductionism.

I would simply point out her first sentence and say... "Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

---

Remember also, that it is not your job to turn her into an objectivist. If she doesn't want to accept reason, I would tell her simply that she is wrong, and that if she wants proof, examine her own life. Then leave the conversation. You simply can't "logic" an irrational person into reason. If you could, not a single person on earth would 'believe in god'.

Good Luck

The only appropriate response to this is: Speak for yourself.

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. 
  

I gather you did not quite "get" the character "Ragnar Danneskjöld" of Atlas Shrugged... or at least you would disagree with him.
 
You use the word "steal".  That is caused by a fundamental misunderstanding in the context of what "initiation" of force is.
 
Redistribution generally results from producers paying more into a system than what they get out (a lot more) and others getting a lot more from the system than what they pay in.  Carving out things Rand did not want to "get" or "fund", you actually believe over her lifetime she falls below the threshold of provider to dependent? 
 
You claim Rand lived as a parasite?

The problem with Reparations, like any other variant of Original Sin, is the belief people are born guilty of a crime they didn't commit.  This is an argument that might have been valid 150 years ago when there were actual victims and perpetrators but today it's another way the term "Social Justice" is used to erode the real virtue of Justice. 

Paying extortion money may seem to be cheaper than letting the "culture war" turn into the civil war it will have to turn into, but the fact that it's reached the point where (ostensibly) serious people are talking about something as absurd as reparations should suggest to you that even if you pay off, they won't give up.  They'll just come up with an even more bizarre reason why stealing from you needs to happen.
 
“You who’re depraved enough to believe that you could adjust yourself to a mystic’s dictatorship and could please him by obeying his orders-there is no way to please him; when you obey, he will reverse his orders; he seeks obedience for the sake of obedience and destruction for the sake of destruction. You who are craven enough to believe that you can make terms with a mystic by giving in to his extortions-there is no way to buy him off, the bribe he wants is your life, as slowly or as fast as you are willing to give it.." - John Galt

A is A

Alex,
You've read from our panel of experts. And I've been voted down for reasons of some form maligning an author. I knew you could handle your our affairs form the tone of your letter. For a fact, it is a world of mediocrity and hyperbole,and I, for one, believe you have the right attitude about choosing the company you keep. After a time, you'll find the right people, and they'll stay in contact with you through the years. For additional intellectual stimulation, send another controversial post to the OO forum. We can always use a little stimulation.
 
And I'll promise to only make book reviews when it is related to the central theme of the initial post.

Actually it was likely entirely correct for her to accept the money... given that it was taken from her in the first place.
 
What would Rand have done with her own money if her right to choose what to do with it had not been violated, i.e. what could she have done instead of paying for the inefficient "services" and "redistribution" mandated by the government and taken in the form of income tax (not to mention all the other taxes...) . 
 
Rand, was the victim of theft; this is not hyperbole; money was taken from her without her consent. It is hard to tell what amount she had to pay in but assuming her average income tax was 30% over the span of her career as script writer and author, imagine what funds she could have had; she could have saved it, invested it, or bought extended private medical insurance, she would have certainly been able to get the medical treatment with what she earned.
 
BUT FOR the government's theft of her resources, she would not have needed assistance and more than likely, when the final tally was made, all the medical treatment she received would not have amounted to the value of what she would have had, had they not taken it from her...
 
..throw in alcohol tax, property tax, education tax (she had no children), tobacco tax, and on top of that all taxes used for programs she would not have supported had the "institutions/departments" been private organizations.... you have a bonanza of value misappropriated from one who was farthest from sanctioning that misappropriation.
 
no matter how much medical treatment she supposedly received, the government got off easy if you ask me.

Ellsworth Toohey: There's the building that should have been yours. There are buildings going up all over the city which are great chances refused and given to incompetent fools. You're walking the streets while they're doing the work that you love but cannot obtain. This city is closed to you. It is I who have done it! Don't you want to know my motive?

Howard Roark: No!

Ellsworth Toohey: I'm fighting you and shall fight you in every way I can.

Howard Roark: You're free to do what you please!

Ellsworth Toohey: Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me in any words you wish.

Howard Roark: But I don't think of you!

[Roark walks away and Toohey's head slumps down]

from the IMdb, so from the movie script, though I believe Rand had control of the screenplay and its editting

I don't believe she would have much to say to them, at all.  If some people have crippled their own minds beyond repair then for what purpose should one deal with them, any more than is absolutely necessary?
It's like that scene in the Fountainhead, where Dominique asks Roark what he thinks of Toohey, to which he laughs:
'Why on Earth should anyone think of Ellsworth Toohey?' (or something along such lines).

Your situation is indeed a common one. Socializing at any stage of life is a challenge for the true individual. My recommendation is likely one that you have already arrived at, that is, immerse yourself in your studies independent of outside influences. You have the opportunity to become whomever you decide to be, provided you stay the course. Foreign exchange? Sounds fantastic. Enjoy all that it and all of the other learning experiences that you can encounter.

Funny, I live in a house, located on some property inside a city which is part of a county in a state within a country on a planet . . . ultimately reality, of which the economic usage of "market" exists within. But I did go to the grocery store today. While I was in the market, I picked up some groceries.
 
Ilya, I find your means of trying to express yourself quite convoluted. Did you express yourself in this manner prior to Northern Illinois University?
 
Edited: Added quotes around "market'.

Whereas the last time I re-read the book, I found myself re-reading Galt's speech.

Actually no. I, in particular, discuss things here only to get reinforcement from people who share my illusions. So, be warned: any attempt to do otherwise and you will be banned.
Next question.

Predatory?

Another random rant. I don't have any questions for you -- I almost regret asking you anything in the first place. But, your evasion and rant-like posts does highlight the nonsensical, dogmatic nature of most of your posts.

I have nothing to contest, nor even add to your post.  It was beautiful.  However, I believe we are being played and I find it painful to see efforts like yours being spent on ends like his.
---
 
This seems to be a request with a very specific sort of motivation; a motive that most of us, on this forum, know all too well.
 
This is a reference to his actual motive; the thing he means by those words:
 
And his own description of the alternative state of non-love:
  
 
He did not call this non-love evil or destructive.  He called it perfect.
 
"It's good to suffer.  Don't complain.  Bear, bow, accept- and be grateful that God has made you suffer.  For this makes you better than the people who are laughing and happy.  If you don't understand this, don't try to understand.  Everything bad comes from the mind, because the mind asks too many questions.  It is blessed to believe, not to understand."  -Ellsworth Toohey
 
If you find yourself struggling to even begin to comprehend that then take a long, hard look at this.
---
 
Ilya Startsev is not a diabolical mastermind like Immanuel Kant or Ellsworth Toohey.  He only intends to be one, once he gets the hang of it.
Once you've got a mental handle on everything above, read this:
 
And realize the full meaning of "I want to understand how you understand it".

I have nothing to contest, nor even add to your post.  It was beautiful.  However, I believe we are being played and I find it painful to see efforts like yours being spent on ends like his.
---
 
This seems to be a request with a very specific sort of motivation; a motive that most of us, on this forum, know all too well.
 
This is a reference to his actual motive; the thing he means by those words:
 
And his own description of the alternative state of non-love:
  
 
He did not call this non-love evil or destructive.  He called it perfect.
 
"It's good to suffer.  Don't complain.  Bear, bow, accept- and be grateful that God has made you suffer.  For this makes you better than the people who are laughing and happy.  If you don't understand this, don't try to understand.  Everything bad comes from the mind, because the mind asks too many questions.  It is blessed to believe, not to understand."  -Ellsworth Toohey
 
If you find yourself struggling to even begin to comprehend that then take a long, hard look at this.
---
 
Ilya Startsev is not a diabolical mastermind like Immanuel Kant or Ellsworth Toohey.  He only intends to be one, once he gets the hang of it.
Once you've got a mental handle on everything above, read this:
 
And realize the full meaning of "I want to understand how you understand it".

Then look at the difference between "I want to understand how you understand it." and "I want to understand how I understand it."
 
The first statement could easily flow from Dale Carnegie's book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" in his adage of "Seek first to understand . . ."
 
The two primary questions that mark one of the entrances into the great hall of epistemology are "What do I know?" and "How do I know it?" is all about understanding how one understands.

Harrison asked: "But is such difficulty essential to property rights?"
 
By tracing the history of the replication of printed knowledge, and understanding how technological advances identifies how the act of copying becomes of lesser and lesser value until the answer to the question, wherein does the value of Atlas Shrugged lie? Surely it is not in the costs of setting up the printing press, or replicating an e-book. If Ayn Rand had not written it, it would simply not exist. The point would be mute. What does not exist, cannot be replicated. Since it does exist, what specifically is it, and to whom does it rightfully belong?
 
If I labor to farm, I do so in anticipation of the likelihood of the harvest, i.e.: to get paid, even if only in the form of food from the harvest or livestock.
If I labor for an employer, again I do so to get paid - if on a farm, perhaps in food or livestock - or in industry, some form of wages, some of which may be used to trade my wages for food.
 
The underlying principle is that man, in order to live, must produce his own food, or a product or service others are willing to trade him food for (even if by proxy of monies.)
 
If someone is to labor via research and compilation of ideas into a book, why should the application of this principle be any different?
 
Here too, the complexities of the details to address this begin to proliferate from this point forward.
 
Edited: Added, Struck out.