Easy Truth

There are nuances of course but the fundamental question is "does freedom of speech also include freedom of transmission of speech"? Freedom to say your piece and not be killed for it is obvious. But a freedom at the expense of the labor of another is sacrificing someone. Now if there is a contract, then the transmission has to go through unaltered. Unless the contract includes the "possible" alteration of the message.

Yes, Putin and his idea of a greater Russian Empire is the shining city upon the hill.

According to Branden she would tell him that she doesn't know much about psychology. These states are psychological states. As in different states of sleep. Phenomena like flight or fight responses or even near death experiences when oxygen is limited. Or rebirthing experiences induced by certain breathing. Or who knows what comes up with LSD. None of them come to a point of demonstrating that "you create existence" ... objectively speaking. Subjectively, okay, fine, you do. But ultimately what you create is the choice to focus or not. That's what you create. Otherwise, contradictions can exist. Your mind can create anything. If existence is your imagination, then anything goes. There is no need to use logic. Just imagine the truth.

Ayn Rand declared "The Virtue of Selfishness." Would she also declare "The Virtue of Narcissism"? Obviously not!

So consciousness is not defined as awareness. Meaning awareness of awareness is the indicator of consciousness in the context of this thread? Where does existence and the awareness of it fall in? Meaning without awareness of self? It seems that consciousness is being defined at a certain level of awareness. As in a bacteria is not conscious because it is not aware of itself. Perhaps a certain level of ability to identify is necessary. A lawnmower is not conscious, not because it is not aware of itself, it simply is not aware/conscious. To say a clock is aware of time is a metaphor. Or a car being aware that there is not enough gas. Sometimes consciousness is shown to be a chemical reaction. Sometimes it an awareness of awareness. Sometimes awareness of self as apposed to other consciousness or possible consciousnesses (plural). And sometimes as having freewill. I suspect this is at the core of your question/interest. You are trying to disprove something. I would like to know what are you trying to disprove to "them"? And what is it that "they" believe?

I assume you are asking "did I (you) create your environment". As in being in a dream, which is your creation. But that is a state of consciousness in the context of psychology. This is to deal with the question of "do I create existence".

"Conscious of" has to mean conscious of something that exists beyond/outside itself. Otherwise it is conscious of being conscious of "being conscious of" nothing in particular but of being "conscious of". Conscious of what? Of being "conscious of".

So what? Being a fan of some intermittent/random fact generator doesn't give it credibility. Like saying I am a fan of Astrology or numerology. If I am a fan of avoiding the number "13", it does not make it more respectable to avoid that number.

This whole thing indicates that the current governmental system can be corrupt in a way that can be understood by the layperson. Biden is corrupt. Biden was corrupt. But so was Trump. So not much would have changed. It just show that if Biden had not done it, Trump would have. Now that it can be proven pretty conclusively, the hope is that Biden will go away … it is their age that will make Biden, Trump and Putin go away, not any of this. Corruption is here to stay, probably all of my lifetime.

Easy Truth also claims that many QAnon people believe that. Turns out that Easy Truth is speaking the truth. https://news.yahoo.com/qanon-supporters-gather-over-theory-210003092.html In Rand's case, I can ascertain that A is A or existence exists or that rational egoism is not evil. I don't need to ask her to confirm it. It goes to show you that with random statements in a body of work, like the Bible or "faith" based literature, one can interpret the information as one would with an abstract poem. Many different subjective versions emerge. Furthermore, Q said this or that can't be ascertained. Even with a cryptographic method that identifies each post as "signed" by the same person with the unique key, I can't know if there is a group that possesses that key. The other question that comes to mind is: Let us say there is a God, or an incredibly advanced being communicating. Why not spell things out rather than drips here and there? Why does it require reading between the lines? There are criminals at work as we speak. Can you disprove that? Does that make me one of the wisest people you can think of? One could imitate Q and once the posts get a following, it seems to have "truth" behind it. Similar to the power of a fad and fashion. Similar to Theranos or other fraudulent investments. They can be believable. I believed Elizabeth Holmes. I had no reason to doubt her … until I did. And this Q thing is justified like the Bible is. One verse contradicting another but used when it serves the preacher's argument.

No, being asked to watch a video by known admirers or Ayn Rand is one way to go. This was recommended to me by some QAnon people. I watched it. It was ridiculous.

No, I watched this comedy. https://greatawakeningreport.com/fall-cabal-documentary/

What are the similarities and differences between 'Communist' haters and Ayn Rand haters? What are the similarities and differences between 'Christian" haters and Ayn Rand haters? What are the similarities and differences between 'Islam' haters and Ayn Rand haters? What are the similarities and differences between 'Fascist' haters and Ayn Rand haters? What is the point of this type of question? That 'Q' is credible? Why not ask that question in the first place? To hold 'Q' beliefs or any of the above examples (Communist, Christian, Islam, Fascist) as having the same validity and esteem as Objectivism is insulting. I watched the Q videos for ten hours I think. It was as informative as a Harry Potter movie. I in fact was entertained by the off the wall beliefs that President Kennedy's son is still alive and Trump's spelling mistakes were code words etc. But incredible also means "not credible".

I would speak in terms of Rand in her highest form because when she was near the end of her life, there were signs of emotional distress/damage that she was not equipped to deal with. I wonder how much she would have agreed with Peikoff. Would she have been horrified when he said something to the effect that he had disliked his teaching role and always wanted to be a writer of fiction? Would she have been more forgiving of Branden? As in time heals all. Would she have been more tolerant of same sex couples (culturally speaking, not politically as she supported their equal rights)? And ultimately the psychology of women and femininity? She was for Israel but would she have spoken about the lobbying activity of that country? And I am most curious if she would support Yaron or Leonard regarding freedom of movement through borders? I would suspect she would have attacked the WEF as fascists with communist slogans. But then I wonder if she would not think of them as a great threat in the overall world of philosophy. I don't see a clamor on this forum. I don't know if she would have said "I told you so". Branden in the end, after all his admonitions about aspects of her philosophy did say that history would prove her right.

If you obey the laws of nature, are these laws the master of your rights? (that was metaphorical but helps in making my point) The law should protect your rights and everyone else's rights. No one is being subjugated when a neighbor objects to you burning leaves when the situation is incendiary. The neighbor has a right to their property too. Protection of their rights is not the same as a government supporting your subjugation or slavery. And the idea that a supporter of individual rights wants to burn leaves whenever they want is simply a smear. A person who is not aware of anyone else's rights can't be aware of their own, it's a description of a sociopath. Such a person is anti social and incapable of trade. That does not describe what an individualist is. True enough. But the current way of governing is out of control as you would agree. The exact source or solution is nuanced and confusing. But at it's core, treating innocents like they are guilty is a key indicator of evil.

And that's the bottom line. Everything else follows.

The title has some merit. But as a mandate for all to be vaccinated, it is actually a utilitarian operation.

The case against willful deception has been clearly made. But there is another element of honesty which is the act of revealing. As in "excessively revealing" can also mean "honesty". Evasion, deception, revealing (or transparency) muddy the water when identifying the virtue or the vice. And of course the societal version vs. the personal version

Sure, they could be mistaken but the issue is why are they so confident in their knowledge. If it's about the high stakes, meaning, "I can't afford to be wrong", then the heightened emotions are causing the irrationality. At that point anything goes, and if you have confidence in them, then you are in trouble. Otherwise, if they know they are being arbitrary, I don't know what the motive would be, other than maybe they want to hurt you/misguide you.

You're distinction between possession vs. ownership is nuanced and I'm trying to understand it. Either way that would imply that we have "certain rights" that we don't have depending of geographical area. Objectively/descriptively is true. I would like your acknowledgement or disagreement on that issue alone if possible. But the question I'm focused on is fundamentally a moral question i.e. should we have the right to keep someone out. And the answer seems to be: yes. But the method of keeping someone out may be different. Perhaps it is the degree of ownership or type of in the continuum of unowned to possessed to owned. The difference in approach by current law and procedure seems to be a one size fits all numerically based approach is a quotas per country (which has an arbitrary component, since the formation of a country is by chance). The only principle that is plausible for a right of entry, has to be property ownership. "You can't come in" has to have some ownership right behind it. "You can't come in without my consent", or the "alliance's consent" can only be an assertion of ownership. Perhaps the case being made is that an alliance is necessary for survival, and therefore, it's manifestation, in this case a country's borders is necessary for survival/life of the individual. That would imply that living in a society is necessity of survival for a rational man. In most cases it is preferable but not necessary in all cases.

What is the difference between a collective of/as "we the people", owning what is inside the border/territory vs. The alliance came up with a process of entry? From the outside, an alliance is a collective. And any claim (imposition of non use or entry) is communication of ownership, "I own this, don't come here, or don't touch this, it's mine". In this case, it is "us", the alliance that owns, and you can't come in "unless" you go by our rules. If there is no claim of ownership, isn't the alliance acting like it owns? You may have a strong case if it turns out that geography or territory is in fact the necessary element of a "country". That would imply that real estate is the determinant factor. The owner to be able to exploit/enjoy the land, will fund the process respecting ownership (if they are rational about it). The principle becomes "individual rights" within "the" territory ought to be respected vs. individual rights should be respected. Is this a correct understanding?

The issue I'm grappling with is the issue of "territory". Funding seems to be directly related to territory, but should it be? We can get cyber security services from a Russian company or maybe even a Chinese company. The internet, once connected to, has no natural boundary. Like an ocean. There may be territories established in the internet, but it's not delineated like a physical boundary is. And so the ethical funding structure is in flux. On one hand, individual rights applies to the individual, any individual, within or without the area that the government claims. But territory, a country, a geographical area delineates "non-contractual" rights, in this case, the freedom of movement and of communication. Those who are outside, don't have certain rights. But this is a claim of ownership of real estate by the collective, right? Funding seems to be related to "being inside" the border. As with the military, it is about defending the border. In this sense, the country has a right based on might. The boundary is there because it will be defended. There is no inherent national boundary, no identifiable property like the US, or Russia, or Korea etc. similar to a human body. A national boundary can shift. My body vs. your body will not shift. It seems that the main technique to fund proposed (in the links you sent) is via real estate assessments. And as justification: those would be to the self interest of rational people. But the question still comes up regarding the individual rights of those who either don't own real estate, or don't want to pay, or own real estate outside of the territory. Should governmental functions, i.e. security, arbitration services be provided by agencies that are outside of the territory? Or is territory a fundament characteristic of "government" and it's funding.

Then the police and judiciary will simply be funded. As in Justice is not contractual. There is no trade. (which makes sense) If so how is it to be funded?

Isn't politics a branch of ethics? Implication being that you can't separate the right treatment of others from ethics. But it can be a political problem to solve rather than a non political one. I tend to categorize it as "societal" vs. "individual/personal", rather than political vs ethical.