Robert Baratheon

I think you have the cart coming before the horse - progressivism uses pragmatism to achieve its idealistic vision - it isn't that pragmatism causes progressivism. But none of this is particularly important as long as we understand what progressivism is and that it is the cause of the decline of liberty in America.

Her writing and characters seemed flat to me - I'm sure you've heard that criticism as well - which is what made the book feel long. I've read the whole Song of Ice and Fire series, and those books actually felt short because the writing and characters were so excellent.

I am not saying no rights are violated. The right violated is to not have one's government pushing religion in a public space. But this encroachment is extremely minimal in this case considering it doesn't limit one's behavior or free practice of one's own religion in any way. It's just an annoyance to hear it. Theoretically, government-sponsored religion could become a huge affront to liberty, and it has historically been a problem. But in the U.S., people remain very free religion-wise. This was my point.

Again, I'm not sure how the word "rooted" is being used in this context. Progressives are primarily pragmatic in their methodology, but I would say the real "roots," (i.e., fundamentals) of progressivism are the elitism and Utopian idealism of the unconstrained vision of humanity.

I don't believe any of the justices have said anything to that effect. Please correct me if I'm wrong. "Anti-immigration" is a progressive meme and I think it's fundamentally dishonest. In my experience, those who strongly oppose illegal immigration tend to be very explicit on the point that they welcome legal immigration. Those aren't even close to my own reasons for opposing illegal immigration. I just don't want them getting free public benefits, and it's as simple as that. Remove the welfare state and I'd be all for open borders. Xenophobia doesn't even enter into the picture for me. We're all descendants of immigrants - whatevs. My entire point was that economic liberties have already been eroded further than religious liberties, so the purpose of the thought experiment was to underscore that people implicitly, if not explicitly, recognize that they have been hurt more by economic policies than religious policies, and even the "religiously influenced" social policies Nicky listed. I think your counterexample is apples-to-oranges because it moves the conversation into abstractions and things that have not happened and probably never will. I don't dispute that there "could" be social policies enacted more damaging than current economic policies, but that's not the situation before us.

We're 100% off topic now, but yes, progressivism is principally pragmatic/utilitarian in its methods toward achieving its Utopian vision for mankind. This is why progressives are willing to systematically violate individual liberties - it's always in the name of some alleged greater societal good on the basis of social justice. The ends always justify the means to progressives, with people never as ends in themselves.

Sowell calls progressivism a "vision" - an all-encompassing worldview, including the driving thoughts and emotions. It is how a person sees reality, and what reality should be. As for what causes that, it's some combination of nature and nurture.

In a word, the cause poisoning liberty is progressivism.

Oh, I've heard statements to the effect of, "College is a waste of money - just study up on subjects yourself." I could name two other Oist forums in particular where this attitude is common, but I won't. Ideological purity is a vice, or at least a fanatical pursuit of it is. The world is messy and you have to get your hands dirty at times. The biggest obstacle to liberty in America is this tendency to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I'm not sure what this means. "Roots"? It's referring to the numerous schisms and "withdrawings of sanction" that have taken place among Objectivists, most of which center on the issue of ideological purity. This is precisely my point.

http://wp.me/p4yevN-4E I think the attitude that degrees are "worthless" or "say nothing" about a person is particularly common among Objectivists because they value real skills and addition of value above all else. They also tend to be more skeptical of common wisdom and conventional thinking in general. However, this position creates a paradox: if degrees really do mean nothing, then why do job creators - who Objectivists claim are rational, profit-seeking, and self-interested - almost invariably prefer applicants with higher education diplomas? In the above post, I argue it's because a degree serves as a proxy for other information about an applicant and is a highly valuable predictor of future stability on the job.

Fairly straightforward to compare, actually. Just give someone the option of which freedom they would rather gain or lose, and you have your answer of which is a worse injustice against them. To measure, we could use the old economist's trick of asking how much they would pay to not lose the freedom or have it returned to them. It's not a perfect measure, but it could provide some insight. The fact is, give someone the option of not paying any taxes for the rest of their life and there is no amount of drug laws, prostitution laws, or prayers in public meetings that will ever stack up against that opportunity. The person will pick not paying taxes, guaranteed, every time because the economic loss of freedom has such a more severe, direct, and harmful impact on actual everyday lives. It's also worth mentioning that my post had little to do with "religious influence" in America, which is a far broader (and more vague) topic. I spoke specifically and only about "religious freedom" in America, which is still very much intact by any meaningful measure. People remain almost totally free to practice their own religions, with only the most minimal and common-sense restrictions on free observance. That was the point I made in my original post. Conspiracy theories and accusations aside, I'm not a conservative or a theist, so we'd have to ask one of each to get their perspectives on these issues.

Neither party is good in either the social or economic realm. I suppose if we're going to get into partisan politics, which enters into my post nowhere, then I would pick Republicans over Democrats on economic liberties if I had to, which I don't and didn't. But you are the one pushing that unnecessary element into the discussion, not me, and it isn't even relevant to my point. If the parties changed platforms tomorrow, my post would stay exactly as its written - it wouldn't flip to then favor the GOP wherever they fell on the topic. Of course taxes are a greater burden than religious morality in this country. You work five months a year just to fund the government. That's not even in the same galaxy as pot or prostitution being illegal, both of which I disagree with, but in the end affect our day to day lives very little. As I said, I don't want prayer in public meetings, but it is nothing except a minor annoyance and I remain free to practice any religion I choose whereas I do not control how my money is spent. That much is fact. I'm still waiting to hear what my "right wing agenda" consists of in your mind, or what my motive is for "shilling" for the GOP (shouldn't I be getting paid if that's the case?) You won't ever answer though, because you know these accusations have no basis in reality.

Really? The "only thing" I had to say about it is that "Liberals are worse"? Let's examine your newest dubious claim, pulled yet again from thin air. Please show me where I used the word liberal, or even any synonym for the word liberal, anywhere in my post. You can't because I didn't. What I did say is that, while both are regrettable, erosion of economic liberties has been far more severe in America than erosion of religious liberties. I didn't blame this erosion of economic liberties on liberals or Democrats, or anybody specific for that matter, and since you didn't ask like a reasonable person would, yes, I do blame both sides for it. In summary, you failed at reading comprehension and made up a bunch of crap that appears nowhere in my post to insult and troll me. And you still haven't answered what specifically my "right wing aenda" involves because, again, it's a fabrication with no support in anything I posted. Who specifically am I "shilling" for again, and why? More questions that will remain unanswered.

Which I did and is totally fine. I didn't start "five threads a day." Stop exaggerating. I started one thread in the past 24 hours, and one thread in the 24 hours before that. What is my "right wing political agenda" specifically, and what is my motive for "diverting attention" from the Republican Party again? I can't keep straight all the motives you are attributing to me. Here I just thought I was a libertarian who doesn't support either major party - you know so much better than I do what my true motives and agenda are.

If you watch the video of Belfort to which I link in the post, he gives his 4 key elements for success you supposedly NEED to be successful: 1. Create a vision for the future - many celebrities, inventors, and business owners stumbled across fame or fortune without holding a grand vision, so this doesn't actually appear to be necessary. 2. Manage your emotional state - lots of successful people who can't or don't do this at all. Steve Jobs, Alec Baldwin, etc. 3. Manage your limiting beliefs - OK, but it's important to stay grounded in reality as well. 4. Adopt the right strategy - Well duh, and isn't that really the elusive key to the kingdom in all this?

I'm using a phone to post at the moment - I will update with some links and examples later tonight if I have time. I do address some of his statements in my blog post. Basically he promises that anyone who follows his steps for success will become wildly successful beyond their dreams, and if they don't, then they obviously didn't follow them correctly - that sort of tautological nonsense.

I see - you don't psychoanalyze people - you just attribute partisan agendas to them based on absolutely nothing in their posts. And you aren't combative with everyone - just certain "dumb" posters who are pushing these imagined partisan agendas. Lots of people post articles here and links to their newsletters or blogs. I'm not sure who you are to tell me what I should or should not post. If you don't like my topics, perhaps start your own instead of just being a magpie on others'.

I've seen Michael Stuart Kelly mention him favorably and quote him on Objectivist Living. I'm trying to find the other mention - it was a while ago.

Objectivism has a long and intwined history with the self-help field, and I know many here are proponents of self-help to varying degrees. I've now seen a couple of prominent Objectivists mention convicted fraudster Jordan Belfort, the subject of the 2013 film The Wolf of Wall Street, positively on the forums in connection with his rebranding as a high-priced self-help guru and motivational speaker on "persuasion techniques." Many of his materials have to do with achieving business success and becoming a self-made individual, but I believe endorsing the man is a mistake. I see this as just another extension of his troubled history making false promises and bilking the gullible for money peddling snake oil - albeit legally this time. I discuss the topic in more depth at: thenewversailles.wordpress.com

You're moving goalposts now. Without evidence, you accused me of trying to "divert attention" from "Republican hypocrisy" through rationalization (where do I mention a political party anywhere?). You obviously don't know what the word means because I don't rationalize the court decision anywhere (in fact, I disagree with it). When I pointed out I have no connection to the GOP or motive to "spin" for them, you shifted to an argument of irrationality, which was not the accusation - spinning for a political party was. I've noticed a pattern of you jumping to extreme conclusions and being combative towards others just for the sake of being contrarian. Some would call this trolling, but I think it's just a compulsive need for you to prove how much purer and smarter you are than everyone else, i.e., the worst tendencies of objectivism. As for your inane contention that my piece is "irrational" because there is "no connection" between religious liberties (the subject of the ruling) and economic liberties, I am making a comparison between the two to draw a contrast. Obviously there is *some* connection between the two because they are both types of liberties - that's a connection. Social and economic positions are often compared and contrasted and discussed together in these political dialogues. There is nothing "irrational" about comparing two separate but related concepts, and you shouldn't read in a sinister partisan motive where there is none.

Since nobody who asks the question at my work or when I enter a business actually cares how I am, I typically reply with a terse "Hello." That way I'm still responding in a friendly way but discouraging a really stupid social trend.

Ever wonder about the inner workings of your typical federal government agency? Wonder no longer: thenewversailles.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/the-inside-scoop/

I'm not a Republican, nor have I ever voted for one, nor do I verbally or financially support the party. Kind of shoots a hole in your bogus theory that I am engaging in "spin" to "divert attention" from the misdeeds of the GOP. "One and only important lesson"? Really? There is only one important thing that anyone could possibly learn from this court decision, and you are the authority on what it is? Maybe you're being just a *tad* hyperbolic here?

Seems like college debate has become just another dog and pony show that tests nothing except how well you can conform to and game the arbitrary rules of the competition.