Repairman

Oh not! Not more of the same re-writing your own version of Objectivism, so that you can convince yourself that you've found some problems that you will now resolve by showing us that market minds can and cannot be lived for and also for others. And if the integration of the many into the dual is sought, then it is possible if only the market were to be slightly redefined into a more complete, robust notion.
After all, markets are an epistemological concept and a social concept before they are a moral concept, and none other than Stiglitz has said that though their "...power ... is enormous, ...they have no inherent moral character." So, Objectivists need to understand that the things they think are contradictory, may not be so. Alexander Hamilton said "A national debt, if not excessive, will be a national blessing". Objectivists need to understand the non-linearity in sentiments like this, for the Gods that be did not make a law that all causal relationships must be linear...as every school kid who studies the anomalous expansion of water well understands.

It is vital to understand that communism does not spring from people like Stalin, but from the cry for freedom and rights of men who have been denied their natural right to walk freely on the earth, just like the next guy... with no respect for fake man-made rules like nobility and titles. It flows from the yearning to live as an individual human being, but as an individual within society...since that is how the human animal lives, and prospers by such living. So, clearly we can see that Objectivism with its stress on the individual carefully combined with its championing of the market is a brother-idea to Communism with its stress that we are all equal in rights carefully combined with its championing of the proper role each of us play in our societies. How are they different? they are almost the same!! If Stalin could take such a noble idea and use it to justify his totalitarianism, surely another dictator can start with an Objectivism idea and use it to justify his own tyranny.

Further, both Objectivism and Communism start at the common base of a realistic, naturalistic world-view, free of mysticism and Gods that were invented by ignorant primitives. Upon this base, they both champion reason. And in morality, they focus on this life of man -- here and now -- not on an after-life, not on rituals, not on prayers, not on mother earth. Man's life on earth is the standard that they both share. As eixplained above, in the abstract, their politics are close... pulling down theocracies and monarchies, and calling for the rights of each man, within the market or the commune. Surely it is not too much more than semantics that these two great ideologies arrive at nearly the same principles, with a few words and minor concepts changed. Going further, it is uncanny that even in aesthetics, both seem to think it is okay and good for art to champion their moral and political ideal.

There, you have your integration, though it is completely false.

There appears to be a slight vitriol here toward Capitalism, and more directly toward Objectivism.
 
Historically, the Luddites became known for attacking what they did not understand. When the labor-saving device made their debut on the scene, naturally these machines where built to perform the tasked being performed of the day, only more efficiently than what was being performed tediously and less efficiently.
 
Did the Luddites embrace this new advance in the application of reason to the problem of production? Quite contraire. The proud new owners of these fine pieces of machinery enabling higher productivity than previously possible often found themselves the victims of vandals.
 
The mechanical weaving loom embodied the new knowledge of the time. It was attacked by those who desired things to remain the same. In this sense, the Luddites resisted change. The Luddites did not want to change. Their response was to try to destroy the physical symbol of this change, in their feeble effort to stop the change. Now while they were successful at destroying others private property, new machines were being produced and innovations implemented along the way to improve their efficiency. Unfortunately, sometimes the owners of these machines were attacked instead of, or in addition to.
 
What has any of this to do with Capitalism or Objectivism? The analogy is apt. Keep in mind, the mechanical loom was the embodiment of the new idea. The owners were savvy enough to recognize the benefit it would bring them. Before the idea could be embodied into a machine, or another mind recognize the potential it offered, it first had to be discovered. This is key.
 
Capitalism has never been given a full political test run, but still continues to operate to this day, The black-market, which runs when arbitrary decrees seek to throttle various aspects of it, arise under nearly every political regime, where a full embracement of Capitalism is verboten.
 
So what do the modern day 'Luddites' have to fear? It is simple. The moral underpinnings that will support Capitalism in the future, the same moral underpinnings that ground Objectivism as a philosophy proper to man. To paraphrase Ayn Rand speaking through John Galt, morality needs to be discovered. Well, Miss Rand has discovered the foundations for morality. The opponents of this morality may obfuscate, misrepresent, and even muddy the waters - but the waters will settle, the misrepresentations will be exposed, and the feeble evasions exposed as attempts being unclear and confusing at best. This does not wayside the fact that such a morality has been discovered. While Aristotle's Law's of Logic were relegated to relative obscurity for nearly a millennia, it is hard to fathom Miss Rand's discovery being relegated to the same fate.
 
A misapplication of "A is A" along the way is, quite simply, a misapplication of "A is A" along the way.

What are those things? There are precious few things we cannot do on our own. If those things are maintaining courts to adjudicate disputes, a defensive military, and police who pick up the pieces after violent crime, then I agree with you. Otherwise, I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you.

To live for the state is to sacrifice for others. This is the basis of all those failed value systems that litter history. They divide value from virtue and hence lead to bastard moralities that leave disappointment, frustration and horror in their wakes.

The industrial innovations in the last decade alone show that we don't need NASA, the post office, etc. I want to pay for all services that I receive so that no dishonest strings remain attached. To the extent that I am forced into government health care, you can be sure that government doctors will have to treat every boil on my *ss. I demand the best and most abundant treatment your dollars can buy.

Give me one example of when this actually happened?

Just one generation ago, Eastern Europe was a mess. The Poles in Gdańsk showed the way, the Berlin wall came down and Russia is being squeezed into fighting rear-guard, end-game style actions like in Crimea. In Asia, from India eastward, things have similarly improved radically over one generation. The middle-east and north Africa seem to be a mess, but these are messes that were probably an inevitable stage in moving from the last generation (of dictatorships) to the next generation where democracies will begin to form.
Of course, things do not move in a straight line. There are political reactions and back-tracking. The boom-bust cycle will not go away; and, we could well see another bust before the current recession is truly over. Nevertheless, if one looks at things globally and from the perspective of generations, things have got better for lots of people, all over the world.

In the west, one might complain about the growing statism, but that's really a complaint about what could be: i.e. things could be so much better. Still, if one considers material values, there has been so much improvement. With all the statism, we still ended up with a huge internet, near-free calls around the world, a multi-GB computer + camera in everyone's pocket. The cars are better. The food is fancier -- even pretentious. Even healthcare, for all the regulation, goes forward rather than back.

But... there's a key difference between a global and long-term trend, and the changes and environment that is relevant for your life. For someone living at the time of the Russian revolution, it would be little solace to know that the commies would be gone after he himself was dead. Even shorter term downtrends can devastate people: the stereotypical example being a middle class Jew who lost everything, even his life, under Nazi rule, even though it lasted about a decade.

As an individual, if you are not going to be actively involved in advocacy of politics, you pretty much have to make the best judgement of all your options, and then act accordingly. As an individual, it is not so important to start by asking: "what place is the most free?", in general terms. One has to relate that to oneself. So, start by asking: what do I want to do? Do I want to be a software nerd or a brain-surgeon, or run a little cafe on a ski-slope, or trade stocks, or be a farmer, or teach school, etc. That's the starting point. Achieving your dream, whatever it is, is possible in more place around the world than ever before.

Oh, and welcome to the forum, Johny Q!

For posterity's sake, don't bother attempting to understand the rest of the nonsense.  If you understand this statement you'll understand the entire convoluted mechanism.
And the only thing to grasp about this statement is the difference between "love of life" and "fear of death".

I've read Atlas once and listened to it once, ten years apart.
 
The first time was a mind-blown experience, but much of it I simply accepted, treating Rand as a kind of god. This was likely due to my only-recent exit of a religious upbringing. I also felt like the book was too long, with Rand repeating herself throughout to drive the message home.
 
The second time I read(/listened to) the book was more of an inspiration. After ten years' extra experience filtered through Rand's ideas, Atlas was much more relatable. Instead of her ideas making sense in theory, many of them I had experienced firsthand. For example, in various work environments, I had seen egalitarian business and employee policies crash and burn many times, while ideas rewarding personal employee responsibility had made daily operations a breeze in comparison. Likewise, in the news, US political shenanigans all but mirrored the fictional ridiculousness Rand had created in Atlas' politics. I had always related to Dagny most, and with the second read through, even more so. Also, my respect for Rand grew after recognizing more of her insight. I think she accomplished what she aimed for, which was to articulate an idealized version of people, at their best. It really was an inspiration to read, and put me in a great mood.
 
One negative I took away after the second read, however, was character development and differentiation. I suppose you could sit and list the differences in Rand's characters, but when reading through, they seem to blend into one "hero" character (with the villains doing the same). Maybe this is due to her idealized treatment of the heroes - nobody had a temper, for example. This could explain why I thought Dagny and Rearden were the most memorable, since they were conflicted for most of the book. While her romantic, idealized character treatment is inspirational, at times it is also unrelatable. Given the choice, however, I'll take the former, since I have so few other choices besides Rand. (An example of a benevolent treatment of characters who nevertheless remain at times conflicted and "human," see author Nevil Shute.)

That statement is both factually and morally wrong.
If you had grasped the meaning of the Fountainhead then you would be ashamed to have made it.

Repairman, I agree with what you said and appreciate the time you obviously gave to what I posted. I personally don't mind good pop music, and even enjoy it, but it doesn't inspire me or stay with me like progressive music does. With a lot of pop music, in fairness, it is intended to be more of a backdrop to a party or to driving in the car, and I think a lot of it does work well for that purpose. But for pure listening experience, it just does not hold a candle to progressive music. But I like good benevolent pop music a lot better than music by those whose attitude seems to be that complexity and ambition in music is a pointless pursuit and intend to proclaim that their three-chord songs are superior to Rush's 2112. While I can understand why people might like the music of some of these bands, like Nirvana, I cannot stomach them because of the attitude expressed by their creators. In the end, though, I tend to agree with your last paragraph about enjoying music at your own discretion.
 
 
 
 
Spiral Architect, metal is probably my favorite genre as well for the same reason, though I tend now towards progressive anything, whether that be progressive metal or rock. I haven't listened much to extreme metal, but I do have a copy of Blackwater Park in transit to me, so I'll see if I can enjoy that.
 
I have yet to see Dream Theater live, but hope to one day, even though it probably won't be the same without Mike Portnoy.

Not voting endorses an outcome as well.  It endorses permitting others to select the winning candidate in your absence.  If there is a distinction between the candidates that will make a difference in how the govt impacts human lives (starting with your own) then not voting could permit others to help make life worse than it would or could have been.   

Inevitably, any conversation about American politics leads to using metaphors. DonAthos, you seem to have run far afield with examples, until you brought it all back to reality: fight the more fundamental battle for reason. How's this for a metaphor: The party of Moe, the party of Larry, and the party of Curly are engaging in an eye-gouging/face-slapping contest as the yacht in their command is rapidly sinking. Moe represents corporate-cronyism, Curly represents universal poverty, and Larry is an anarchist. All are evil, all have abandoned any rational ideology.
Seriously, at the heart of our dilemma is (1) the pseudo-religious belief that democracy is some magical panacea. Democracy is, by definition, the rule of the majority. The reason for the Bill of Rights was to prevent OPPRESSIVE majorities, and yet, it seems we cannot escape the effect of oppressive majorities. And (2), their is no guiding comprehensive philosophy suitable for the majority, other than Objectivism. Presently, the majority reject it.
So, what options are left? At the polls, one can abstain, or vote libertarian, or the party of Larry, in effect, the least likely to do any harm, because he won't win. In 2000, I vote for a Rasta-Nafarian candidate, as an option to Bush & Gore. More fundamentally, argue tactfully with voters willing to listen to reason. But to directly address the opening posting: They're all evil, so evil wins.

Punk worked because it took rock and got back to basics in a time rock was going critical in density.  Simple structures, basic rhythm or riffs (which in the case of punk is basically the rhythm) to form a catchy melody. etc.  The only issue is one music has suffered from as a whole and that is lyrics. 
 
"Counter culture" is simply something labels do to make it sound fresh.  Punk came out when rock music was heavily progressive while the radio was settling into disco, so it was something new in context even if a retread of structures from 15 years earlier but taking advantage of newer distortion and amplifier power.   The cycle repeats itself from there:  The 80's had the New Wave and alternative, the 90's had  Grunge (complete with clothing that was the "Seattle look" that musicians in Seattle didn't even wear) and the "new" alternative.  Even metal tried to do the face lift with the so called Nu-Metal (which was basically an extreme punk and metal hybrid - don't get me started).  It was all "counter culture" which was the labels attempt to make it new and different from the same thing your older brother listened to. 

Malum prohibitum / malum in se. Anytime I have an opportunity to have a sincere and distraction free discussion, I open with these Latin terms. Malum prohibitum, wrong, because the law prohibits it, and malum in se, wrong, because it is evil in itself. The fact that these are terms used in law helps to give them credibility. When a person considers deeply the fact that some things are assumed to be wrong or forbidden merely because governing authorities have decreed it, it puts doubt in their mind. They begin to think independent of notions or prejudices they've held all their lives. The Volstead Act is a perfect example of malum prohibitum. To be sure, I agree with those who've stated, as in my earlier statement, that many people should simply be left to their blissful ignorance. Many rarely think about ethics. In the lower-working class circles I've been a party to, many have rarely encountered the word, "ethics", couldn't define it, and therefore don't care. To them, the intrinsic or mystical values of morality are "good enough." Or, to some, life is a game, with primacy of the Eleventh Commandment: Don't Get Caught.
But for those one occasionally encounters, the one who finds a moment to question the madness that seems to erupt every week in the news, you have a choice. To shrug it off and say: who knows? Or do you ask him/her where morals come from? You'd be surprised at how some people begin to doubt the invincibility of traditional values, legal values, or even religious values. And then, sometimes they begin talking nutty, as if they are channeling God's consciousness, telling you what God's wishes are. Either way, it's interesting to hear people speak their thoughts, even when their beliefs are permanent. If there is a chance to explain morality as having a foundation in reality, I urge you to go for it. If for no other reason, people of faith should know that rationalists are not evil.

It's alive, it's alive, it's alive!!
 
Ranking America as "#1"? By what standard?
 
Indeed, the United States of America draws resources and talented individuals from around the world for many reasons. Drawing the life out of other nations is not one of those reasons, as believed by the "Blame America First Committee." There is a saying: People vote with their feet. Literal translation: When free people have reason to move, they move. The creator and primary contributor to this thread has willfully admitted that his origins and place of birth are the (late) great people's Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. Furthermore, he seems to believe that some of the scientific and technical achievements of the Soviet-era are justification for hundreds of millions of deaths to his fellow Russians, less-than fellow Ukrainians, as well as non-Slavic ethnic minorities within the reach of Soviet-era authorities. And heroes of the USSR? Let us not forget one the most revered and brilliant Soviet scientists: Andrei Sakorov. His reward for developing his nation's hydrogen-fusion weapon, as well as numerous other scientific advances, was to be shut-up and treated as a threat to state authority. His crime was attempting to speak the truth.
 
When a state controls science, science will be subject to the wishes of men with war on their minds. Granted, the Soviet Union had every reason to wish to protect its borders, as do all nations. Within those borders, horrors no less horrifying as those of the Third Reich were pursued as only Soviet-statist monsters could perpetrate. A brilliant scientist, or even a humble small-arms designer, such as Mikhail Kaloshnikov, uses the creative power endowed by his gifted mind, and produces for the state. Then, he wonders: What have I done? The recent passing of Kaloshnikov (sic) allowed a cleric in whom he trusted to reveal a letter he wrote, expressing the regrets he had for all of the destruction resulting from his creation. I personally believe he was guilty of nothing other than his own personal behavior. But the total control of people through the state is the greatest danger confronting us now, just as it was in the Cold War.
 
America: #1? By what standard? Certainly my nation has committed crimes of immorality, not least of which was enslavement of peoples abducted from slave-ships and their homelands in Africa. Many were worked to their deaths, and no apologies can undo the damage. The sins of our past are only one part of our conundrum of the present. In time, this too shall pass. And all Americans will understand the freedom to build a better future through capitalism. It is our principles that make this possible. Among those principles is the right of every man and woman to raise themselves to what ever levels of success their talents and tenacity permit them. The state be damned.
 
You talk of absorbing the resources of other peoples, as vampires? Those other peoples are compensated with mutual consent. If their nations' leaders are controlling their resources, rather than private companies, blame their socialist leaders, not America. Better yet, go to those nations and demand better treatment of their common people. Right-like that's gonna happen! If you went to Putin's Russia, you'd be dead on arrival.
 
You are alive; you have consciousness. In America, you may use it anyway that doesn't violate the law. When the day comes that we have a fully-functional capitalist society, all individuals will pursue their dreams, hindered only by market forces. But for those who decry America as a heartless engine of destruction, merely for engaging in commerce, I take great pleasure in driving the proverbial stake through your argument.
 
(apologies for any misspelled Russian names)

I deem this thread absurdum ad nauseum!

I am neither an expert on Scientology nor Faith-Logic, neither would I wish to be. Both are reject objective reality.
 
But the very idea of considering either intellectual would comparable to accepting an invitation to have tea with the Mad Hatter.
 
I accept your gracious compliment for my writing, however, I will continue my attempts to thwart you until you provide a clear and comprehensive argument. So far, this has proved to be farce on an infinite scale. If in fact you understand my view, you find I have no conflict. Only conflict with you. My argument is merely commentary on what I view as unmitigated fraud. When one has a conflicted argument, when one uses subjectivity as argument, when one faces a conundrum, one's premises are in error. Check your premises.
 
Indeed, the "Mad Russian" comment was a bit over-the-top. I will try to refrain myself in the future. But you do seem to boast quite a bit about the achievements of the Soviet Union, and Russians in general, as if you had something to do with their accomplishments by virtue of "being Russian." No one will blame you personally for atrocities committed by Russians, as long as you likewise don't try to take credit for their achievements.
 
So, integrate what ever you can. Don't let me stop you. But remember: you can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

My goal, for the moment, is clarifying any misconceptions you, or anyone reading this, may have regarding my outlook on globalization. I have no other goal.
 
An individual is the ultimate minority. Groups of individuals form markets, whether they identify themselves as such or not. They buy things. They buy things, because they need and want things. When more things are available to more markets, life is better for those people in those markets. If they are not a market of traders, voluntarily buying and selling, they become an angry mob of looters, forcing possessions from their rightful owners, until their is nothing left. You may choose a society governed by the rules of voluntary trade, (laissez-faire capitalism); you may choose a mixed economy, wherein the appointed government administrators are allowed to interfere with markets, or taken to the extreme, you may have the ludicrous command economy, wherein government administrators assume total control of production and distribution. Many people believe that the latter two options are the most fair to all people. Whether or not this could possibly be so is historically rendered a "no-brainer." The most famous example of the dangers of command economies is the brief history of the Soviet Union. The forced labor and the forced starvation made prisoners of otherwise lawful citizens, millions received death-sentences. The legacy is a society that has no respect for their authorities, only fear.
Individuals have natural rights. Among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe a man has the right to possess that which he earned, that which he paid for through his efforts and ingenuity. He has a right to negotiate for his pay. He has a right to negotiate the price of his services and wares. Most of us know this as free-enterprise, market or laissez-faire capitalism. It has its flaws. It is not perfect. It does not promise Utopia. But dare you believe the criminals who promise Utopia?
 
Addendum: There is another option for free-market societies: primitive, or subsistence societies. Would you care to try living in one?

Actually, I'm anti-liar.

Have you ever seen so many words to say so little?

I have found this forum an absolute joy, an addendum to a relatively secure, sometimes demanding, and often tedious life-style. My interest and joy are derived from the satisfaction of interacting with the many different personalities, the individuals who are not ashamed to express their individuality, the individuals who have discovered for themselves the shared value of a truly comprehensive and solid philosophy. I will admit, I have yet to deliver the evidence of my own genius, the best of my creative potential. But this forum has allowed me an opportunity to exercise my reasoning and debating skills with people worthy of intellectual challenge.
And who knows: Maybe one day Objectivism might not be an obscure intellectual challenge. It could be the accepted norm of a new Age of Enlightenment. I, for one, am willing to advance the process, one individual at a time. 

This is great thread; I'm glad to read the experiences of other rational people. Posts 91, 94, and 99 are most notable to me, as I, too, shared some of those experiences from my Catholic background, more precisely, a semi-faith household. Mother is still a practicing Catholic, attending church weekly, or as her health permits. Father was admittedly non-religious, and considered people out-spoken in their religions to be hypocrites. I attended 8 years of Catholic school, named after Saint George, who supposedly slew a dragon, no less. By sixth grade, I was quite convinced that the whole thing was a colossal put-on. It was a great time to be experiencing the changes in the world, the 1960s and 70s. Popular culture was a huge influence. One kid brought a cassette tape recorder to school with a recording of George Carlin. Among the monologues on Class Clown, George explains his experience as an Irish-Catholic. That was it. I was the only kid to opt out of Confirmation. I stopped going to church at age 13. This is not to say that the education and religious instructions haven't been useful; in fact they have. I use them for arguing AGAINST the existence of god. That caused me enough trouble, that throughout my life, I have tried to understand why people hold these beliefs, and in general I held my tongue when in social settings, if truth and reason were "inappropriate." I even read the Bible cover to back. Life has taught me to avoid discussions with irrational people, and if that means living a life more isolated rather than one of greater popularity, so be it. It's my life.
My encounter with Ayn Rand, and her Objectivist philosophy, completed a search for nearly a half century for a philosophical identity, and a re-affirmation that no one has the right to suppress the truth.

Government most definitely has a purpose: 1) To protect its borders from threats of invasion; 2) To secure the physical and property rights of its citizens through a code of moral laws; 3) To provide a court of justice to interpret and enforce that code of moral laws. This is clearly expressed in the writings of Ayn Rand. I may have taken liberties with the wording, and the of course there are details she clearly expressed.

Actually Skylab 72, I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. You have a working solution for tangible problems, and a metaphysical answer, which I may not entirely understand, but it works for you. I simply don't associate mathematical formulas with faith. And I cannot concede that objective reality can be a matter of faith. The function and image of YOUR god is drastically different from those of conventional religions, ancient mysticism, or cults. I doubt if anyone else has exactly the identical concept of god as you do, which is to your advantage.

In regard to any "reconciliation" of personal or public faith with Objectivism, the results show that our theist allies wish to re-issue God as something other than what God, or the plurality of polytheistic Gods, was every conceived to be. The God of the theists lies somewhere in their imaginations; it will do no harm, nor will it be motivated to action through any prayer. It is not possessed of an independent conscience. Its power is merely that of nature. I have no trouble with folks who wish to rely on their imaginations to help them through problems. Their faith is a personal matter. But it does not reconcile with objective reality, and therefore does not reconcile with Objectivism. The convenient abstraction many believe to be God may have a place in other philosophical or traditional practices, meditation or cursing, but the fact remains: god is a fantasy.