softwareNerd

So, the IQ scores of caucasian is correlated to their support for free-markets?

Let me guess: melanin makes people socialist?

http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-of-obama-with-military-2016-3/#obama-greets-us-troops-as-he-holds-a-veterans-day-event-at-the-us-army-garrison-at-yongsan-military-base-in-seoul-november-11-2010-3

It think its normal to be much more alert to risks that are caused by the malicious intent of others. Drunk drivers probably kill many more people each year than terrorist drivers do, but the difference is culpable-negligence vs. malafide intent. And, I wouldn't be surprised if bad drivers kill even more than drunk ones. Even in that type of negligence, I suspect that negligence caused by acts of omission cause less anger than those caused by positive acts of commission. Does it make sense to use this range: acts of nature that we have not being able to predict on one extreme, and malafide human actors at the other extreme? Does it make sense for some purposes, but not for others?

Peikoff's UO lecture address the question: is ignorance bliss. There are many examples one can come up with where ignorance seems to be bliss. The fact of death has never given me any sadness or fear. Even when I understood just a little of Rand, her comment about her not dying, but the world dying struck a note in me. Yes, I know the formulation is more poetic than exact; but it is how I've always felt from as long as I remember. Still, if it did, I cannot comprehend the idea of evading it. How does one do that? Introspecting, it seems to be an impossibility. Maybe one can engage in a conscious repression until it becomes an unconscious repression? I don't know if that's possible. If it is, I wonder what side-effects it would have.

This is unclear, Why would one make up one's mind before asking for advice? It makes it sound as if there's not much point in asking for advice? Also, the concept of "advice" (and even "directions") is pretty fuzzy. When we train to be engineers, does a lecturer give us "advice" when they explain the best way to (say) draw an electric circuit? When we read Virtue of Selfishness, is Rand giving us advice about how to achieve happiness?

If he shouted "allah 'akbar", as was widely reported, the genre of his motives aren't hard to guess.

... unless you know exactly that you're taking your best shot in the face of uncertainty. (This is not an exception, it's pretty routine.) "Permitted" should not be used in this summary, since Objectivism says it is an Objective system where what's good is derived from a context. Saying that deception is "permitted' sounds grudging, when it can actually be a huge virtue in the right context. The "white lies" comment seems out of place: seems to belong at another level of detail. Will only leave one wondering why white lies are worse the others.

It's an echo of the classic Stoic vs. Epicurean dichotomy. The stoics were the driven ones, doing big things, but driven by a sense of duty. The epicureans had a more "take it easy and smell the roses" attitude; but, the notion of purposefulness was not stressed.

Interesting. I recently learnt that they have the Hindu god Ganesh on their currency (Rupiyah) even though they're a Muslim country. This aspect of history fascinated me. Not just language but other similarities: for instance the days of the week in Hindi are named after planetary bodies, and they (mostly) match the names of the bodies we use in English. I think this side of history is not taught enough in schools. After teaching about the history of their own country, I think the next most important topic in history should be to step back and tell the tale of humankind. Only then should we swivel back to specific cultures and countries. Middle schoolers should understand the the story of Adam and Eve is closer to the truth than they might otherwise think: that humans came from common roots. Instead of stressing the differences -- as the multiculturalists do -- kids should be taught how fuzzy these differences really are. If we change the time-axis, we are all Africans. Every kid should understand this perspective.

Yes, but I pose it that way because if you think the government can restrict a sale to some age (let's say 10 years old), then you could phrase that as"nobody has the right to buy anything freely", when the more accurate description is that "anyone over 10 can buy anything freely, but anyone else -- where not reasonably evident -- can be asked to prove they're over 10." Actually, lots of foreigners have the right to immigrate. See the 10-year old example above.

Would you be okay with a shopkeeper selling absolutely anything: drugs, drink, guns, to anyone, regardless of age? I actually don't have a huge problem with any of this, in principle.

So, a 20-year old drinking a beer is "initiating force", according to the way you conceptualize the idea?

There's something that John Allison said once in a reply to someone asking him how to spread Objectivism. (My paraphrase from memory.). "Become a success in your field, using Objectivism. And when people ask you what makes you so successful, tell them." (something along those lines.)

You do not know the context of the questioner, so you're simply making an assumption that they're seeking validation. Obviously you're making an assumption about this person. It's quite likely to be an unjustified assumption. If you put on your benevolent glasses for a bit, you'll see a few pretty happy alternatives, just as likely -- and, taken together, more likely -- than your assumption of some being lesser than yourself. Were the comments here only negative? Genuine question: I really don't know. In my ignorance, I'd guess that you simply got a total of fewer responses here, given the small number of members. I assume you got a mix of positive and negative. I searched for the phrase "Fantasy is not a prime virtue" and couldn't find the response you're talking about. I see a larger problem here: you're trying to get a picture of Objectivists from the specific interactions they have on philosophy-leaning forums. That seems to be a poor sample.

I think there are two separate streams of ideas here: Should Objectivists be having lots of fun? Can Objectivism be popularized without compromising objectivity, truth and the good? On Fun: No, definitely not. We should struggle stoically. Life is a challenge. LOL, just kidding! Of course, Objectivists should have as much fun as they can. However, fun is really not a great word to describe all the ways of enjoying being alive. You could use it that way, but many people do not: so there could be an issue in communication. As an example: I've occasionally worked with people -- just regular middle-class colleagues -- who consider the jobs they do to be more than drudgery. They think of their jobs as draining their souls. Then, there is the larger set who "like their jobs", because the pay meets their expectations and their colleagues are fun to hang out with, but when it comes to the job itself they do it competently enough but do not seem to have much zest to improve or to change. And, finally, one has the third set -- not insubstantial -- who seem to find a degree of purpose in their work, and try to improve how they do things, and to put in their best. People spend almost all their adult lives working. SO, the key to long term happiness is to be working somewhere and on something that gives you some degree of enjoyment. A 2 week vacation to Florida isn't going to do it. Westerners advise their kids to "follow their passion", whereas your traditional Easterner tells their kid that they should get a well-paying career and that money will bring them the happiness they need. None of them are talking about fun in its narrower sense. They would all advise fun. Even most Christians and a church social have lots of fun, in the narrower sense. But, the broader idea is: enjoy life. That's a place where Objectivist-inspired authors still have a role to play. Candidly, I wouldn't find it weird is people at a Christian social are having more "fun" in the narrower sense than folks at an Objectivist social. I would find it depressing if those Christians understand the broader value of seeking a purpose (and diving into that purpose, and feeling rewarded by achieving that purpose) better than Objectivists. That would be a true wake-up call. History: I think the history of Objectivism does support some of Cart's critique, but it's "so 1990s". Again though, the problem is not that fun was undervalued. More importantly, the focus was on politics; and the psychological feel was one of us-vs-them; never healthy. From me, this is a critique, and not criticism. I think the movement through a learning process where everyone, from Rand down to new readers had to digest what it all meant, in all sorts of aspects of life. As it grew, the many new people in the movement questioned some false assumptions and I think the late 1990s might have been a time -- the internet did it -- when the majority discarded various concrete-bound false ideas around the whole idea of fun. However, I think too many Objectivists continued to be more outward-focused rather than focused on their values. That appears to have changed in the last decade or so. It has probably been a combination of on-going learning and maturity of the movement, and also the ability of the internet to allow people to come together, but also to selectively meet-up in real life and do things that have little to do with philosophy. Job #1 is to maximize happiness: Still, this last bit is where more "work" is needed. It has to be done primarily by each Objectivist individually: turning a focus inward, understanding that some things outside are unlikely to change, and figuring out how to make the most of one's own life anyway. If one is living in the U.S., and most western countries, there's seldom an external excuse for not having a good, enjoyable life. There are exceptions of course. Some people fall afoul of "the system" and it chews them up. For others, it may be too late. And, for still others, reality might have dealt them a really bad hand: a debilitating disease, for instance. So, I'm talking about the typical Objectivist here. Spreading the philosophy: I'd start with asking: "why?" and, even more importantly, "are you going to focus on that at the cost of your happiness, or as something that would bring you great happiness under realistic assumptions about what you can achieve?" If the things you think you can achieve, and the process you have to go through to achieve them, will not bring you happiness, then why would you waste your time doing them? This is not to diss those who spend their time doing this. For instance, the Institute of Justice fights cases that take a small bar-grade ice-pick to an ice-berg. But, I think this could be enjoyable and purposeful and some lawyers could have a lot of fun (that word again) doing it. If they can put food on their table in the process, more power to them! Similarly, if someone makes it his mission to get a few thousand additional kids to read The Fountainhead each year, and they enjoy this, and can make a living doing this, I wish them well. In the end though, most people have other career goals, and since work is such a large part of life, that's where they have to seek fun and fulfillment. The Objectivist youth organization that began as a campus newsletter, changed its focus. They figured out that their members could do more with their lives if they know a little less about Kant and Plato, and a little more about more immediate ways to make one's life a success, or if they had a way to network while looking for work, etc. In terms of spreading the philosophy, I think it will take something similar. It won't take people having more fun as narrowly defined. It's more likely to take someone who can craft a coherent message that gives great advice about how to live one's life to the fullest. it would take someone who understand the best ideas of modern motivational speakers, evangelists and self-help writers. Someone who can throw out the bad, and keep the nuggets that make sense. Someone who can craft that into a coherent whole, and can do so consistently with Objectivist Ethics. That could be a a game-changer. Meanwhile, if you're not that person, I'd fall back to: get a life... where you can find the maximum happiness for yourself, and feel a sense of purpose.

This would be less disingenuous if you had written "that it's okay" rather than "whether it's okay". You would not be the first author to blame his audience for not getting it lol!

I believe African languages, Chinese-related languages and Uralic languages are the exceptions. I assume that native-American languages -- so far as they still exist -- would also be the exception. Strictly speaking, Sanskrit did not leave its fingerprints. The term "proto Indo-European" is sometimes used for whatever language was being spoken by the people who had migrated out of Africa and were living somewhere in central Asia, before they migrated further. So, "proto Indo-European" left its fingerprints on the European languages, on the Iranian branch, and on the Indian branch (represented by Sanskrit). It is hard to tell what stories truly are morphed version of an original. After all, fairy tales are the way we teach our children certain ideas, and (similarly) myths are also the way we "document" ideas in an oral tradition. Two clans that have split up hundreds of years previously may both find (separately) that they need to transmit a certain new idea. This might in two myths or fairy-tales that seem to share a core, but really have no shared author (unless you count reality as an author). BTW: Sanskrit is still taught in Indian schools for a few grades. Usually by rote and soon forgotten. Hindu priests can read and understand Sanskrit in scripture, and a few others can speak it too (think of the Esperanto crowd). The script used is Devnagri, which is also used for Hindi, so most literate Indians will be able to read Sanskrit in the way an English speaker could read Latin...both without knowing what it means.

You might know this already, but Sanskrit is considered an "Indo-European" language. Indo-European languages broke into two streams: Indo-Iranian and European. Many words that our ancestors uses thousands of years ago are thus shared. The word for mother is the archetypical example. BUt, there are some other interesting ones. For instance "Agni" is fire in classical Hindi ('Aag" more colloquially), and it is relate to the English word "ignite". See other cognates here. It isn't just words that are shared. The fairly tales we tell our kids are often rooted in tales from ages ago, which have then morphed slightly in different cultures, but if a Swede hears a classic Iranian fairy tale and looks past the concretes drawn from Iranian culture, he will often recognize a classic Swedish fairy tale. Even the story of Solomon saying he's cut a baby in half is found in Eastern scripture.

I have no issue with the idea of an objective border control. Even within the "open borders" crowd, many are fine with border control. The vast majority of people who speak up for illegal immigrants are also okay with border control. The traditional position that has done the rounds among Objectivists is something like "the government should confirm that those coming here do not have highly communicable diseases and do not have criminal or similarly nefarious intent". At any rate, the wider political debate is not at all about whether the government should check immigrants. It is about what types of checks and controls the government is allowed to impose. Also, about when the government breaches the line so radically that it is ethical to break evade the law. These are the real issues: the existence / non-existence of some checks is a distraction.

Donald Trump has now made life more difficult for H1-B holders. These are people who earn a minimum of $60,000 a year, and typically closer to $80K. https://scroll.in/latest/855424/policy-change-makes-it-harder-to-renew-us-non-immigrant-visa-including-h-1b The irony is that the anti-immigrant voter is also protectionist about "sending jobs to India". They do not understand the causal link between the lowered H1-B quotas and the rise of India's software-export industry. And this one-level-removed complexity is too much for Trump to grasp. Despite this, America is still a huge draw. While Trump supporters are the cry-babies who think they have fewer opportunities with each generation; but immigrants see America through selfish eyes that is closer to the mythology of the American dreamer. Lots of people try for the lottery repeatedly, putting their lives on hold for years. The majority of H1-B folk then work in the U.S. at jobs they did not really like...sometimes for 7 or 8 years while they await the rest of the process. They hold the American dream in a way that Trump supporters definitely do not. There is so much opportunity in this country. Yes, there are many Americans who fall foul of the system, and whose lives become nightmares when the government machine chews on them. But, the vast majority have ample opportunities to make their lives happy and successful. Blaming immigrants for their lack of success and happiness is an understandable but sad psychological defense mechanism. Not every potential immigrant attempts the process though. Given that China and India and a few other such countries do have some decent opportunities, many very competent people figure they'll stay there for good...often "taking 2 or 3 American jobs" for every one they'd have "taken" if they'd immigrated. Often, they end up creating hundreds of jobs in India which they would otherwise have created in the US. All while Trump gathers up the votes of American cry-babies.

I've been around Objectivists who spend too much time complaining about the world, and who come across as burdened by the world, fighting a fight where they're fighting for the future, but with no reward in sight. Nobody wants to follow Don Quixote into a battle against windmills. They're not much fun either. OTOH, the Objectivist friends I know in person may focus on such things in forums, but we don't spend much time on such topics in person. Then, it is mostly about very specific topics: for me... software, or insurance, of the stock market, or history, etc. Meanwhile, complainers and downers are everywhere; not just among ARI-admirers. You get them amongst ARI-haters and actually everywhere in the general population. They too are not much fun.

There's a Monty Python sketch of this great little Germanic kingdom where all those who are not having fun will be punished by King HandyHandle (or King CartBeforeHorse)

Okay, I can buy that. If one of my girlfriends says she had the right to know about the others, I agree she's using a concept of "right" that is coherent (given that I really led her on ). In Contract Law 101, one of the first lessons I was taught was that a "Contract" is a legally enforceable "Agreement", and but not all agreements were legally enforceable. Yet, I can see the term "contract" being applied to the more formally defined "contract" or agreement. But, with that said, I don't see the relevance of this idea to government allowing or stopping people from doing something in contexts where the other parties to that something are willing participants (like the employer who willingly hires an immigrant). To use the broad social concept of right seems like an equivocation when I'm asking something like: do I have the right to hire this foreigner. I think we're strictly in the realm of legally-enforceable rights here. So, what am I missing?

Well, that was their story in the video and they're sticking with it. And -- to those who think Mexicans will vote away our rights -- white voters voted for the government that gets away with this.