softwareNerd

I question the underlying idea that people have rights because they can reason. Not saying it is not true, but it sure is not an "argument". It's just an unsupported claim. I'd like to see the OP support this claim with an argument.

What Gus van Horn writes about may be termed a "hate crime", but objectively it is not a crime at all. Everyone has the right to hate. At the next step, people have the right to express their hatred. (There are "fighting words" situations that should be criminal, but that's the borderline case.) Next is the case where someone gravely injures someone else: e.g. kills them. Yet, it is not criminal. The law looks to the perpetrator's intent and motivation to judge is their act was within bounds of reason and that the killing was an "accident", or if their acts were unintentional but "criminally negligent", or whether the act was intentional and thus criminal. Finally, there's the question of penalty for that last category: the criminal. I'm sympathetic to the idea that sentencing can take into account the motivation of the criminal. This does not have to imply non-objectivity, nor slippery slopes.

There was a time when respected American economists were afraid that for all the freedoms in the U.S. it was less practical than communism. Nobel prize winner, Paul Samuelson, wrote a widely used college text that showed how the U.S.S.R. economy would surpass the U.S. sometime in the future. So, just because China does something injurious to itself, why should the U.S. do the same. That is the exact pint that Hazlitt speaks to in his essay.

There are a couple of old threads that discuss the topic of public nudity in quite some depth. They also have references to Rand's writing and commentary on what she meant/did not mean, etc.

A crime require more than proof of intent. As Invictus said, it typically requires proof of malicious intent. Gross negligence is the other possibility. Whether it is a crime or not does not depend on how malicious the intent was. With the classic hate crime, the extra maliciousness influenced the sentence. The Belgium case is different though: because there is no crime, only maliciousness (at most, even though that is debatable too).

This reminds me that the Mises institute has a Henry Hazlitt's book available for free download: https://mises.org/library/economics-one-lesson

Things like that comment are non-issues. Everyone knows that there's a sense in which a lot of countries are shit-hole countries. These comments rile up the politically correct. The anti-Trump channels like MS-NBC and CNN treat it as news. Meanwhile, those who are non absolutely anti-Trump (a majority of people) think to themselves: "That's something I might have said." This has been Trump's real secret in the last election. Instead of toning down the voice of potential supporters, he has amplified it. If a voter is thinking: "I should have a guaranteed job, but Ford moved production to Mexico". The typical politician would say that he thinks NAFTA needs some changes. The voter isn't sure if he's just saying it to get elected Trump will say that, but he'll add that Mexicans are mostly rapists and thugs, and he will go out of his way to mention day-to-day crime where the perpetrator was Mexican (so, the voter thinks "this guy feels even more strongly than I do") Trump has no clue how to solve anything, but he is completely ego-less and gets his sense of self-worth from the eyes and voices of others. So, he is very in-tune with how to position himself to that audience. While he makes few inroads with people who respect ideas, the unwashed masses love him. He did not win because he supported free-markets more than others. A significant fraction of his voters in the mid-western states were actually Bernie supporters. These were not the people who attended Trump rallies, and they would not personally be as rude as he is. But, what they saw in Trump was someone who seemed serious about protectionism. And, not just protectionism. Consider health-care: though all Republicans like to talk about repealing Obamacare, with many -- and clearly with Trump -- it is hot air. He made it very clear that he wanted to repeal "Obamacare", while keeping all the goodies that were being enacted by Obamacare. Trump doesn't want to change Obamacare. He's even scared of re-branding it as Trumpcare. He's happy to keep it there as something he can beat up on, but not change. Trump won this election by winning a few swing states and a few states that are slightly Democratic. Without support from voters who were Bernie supporters, it's unlikely that he'd have been president.

No, we shouldn't leave it at that. Next step: you should see for yourself! Time for you to immigrate here too. Given the rumblings we hear from South Africa, it might be time to change locations. The U.S. is a great place to live, if one could choose.

I'm not sure on what you base your view of the psychology of middle-class Americans. What Trump saw was the the number of whiny whites had grown to a point where they had become a voting bank that nobody was speaking to. He saw that the Democratic party had started ignoring these people, and not been giving them enough hand-outs. These people felt invisible. In the wake of the great recession, they were also scared. For 40 years, ever since early Japanese competition, people have been telling these cohorts that the world is changing and they'd better adapt. Many did. But, too many pouted and refused to adapt. As if the world owed them a living! Japan came, the Asian tigers came,...and there was blowback each time, but net-net the system adjusted. Then the Chinese came -- a billion workers. And these Americans, still competing mostly on their low-skilled labor -- and having not heeded a few decades of warnings -- were finally scared. The great recession was the final straw. These loser Americans were then looking for someone to blame for their folly. Trump saw that. And, trump is a master of blaming others. And truth has no meaning to him, so he was the right person at the right time. Hillary was seen as "status quo", so these unthinking Americans -- clueless about right and wrong political ideas -- wanted to kick out anyone conventional. A bit to his surprise, trump found himself leading. Being the zero-ego that he is, he was expert in reflecting back the emotions of the crowd. A populist in the worst possible sense. He does not represent self-reliance, self-esteem and independence. He won because he pandered to the whining low-middle class white voters who think the world owes them something, and who think any type of intellectualism is just trickery.

One would think that if something like that is legal, there won't be an issue with recording/streaming it. But, one would need to know all the rules around research to really know if it is legal. Or, are you suggesting that the mutant mice would not be the real research; they'd be the fund-raising show for some other research? Would it really pay for the research though? How many people will pay to see a live stream like that?

Yeah I know. Trump is one of the most self-less people I've seen: completely lacking in self-esteem and desperate for people to constantly tell him how great he is, even when he knows they're lying. No wonder the left occasionally try to tie him to Ayn Rand. He has almost zero understanding of either the purpose of government or of what would make good policy. He has an extremely short-term view of action. He's not a businessman in the J.P.Morgan vein. He's a shyster who can make money and be effective if the system requires corruption, dealing with union thugs, and so on. So, I'll give him that: he is an effective businessman in the context of the more heavily regulated, "bribe your way out" and "deal with thugs" parts of the economy. Like many businessmen, he has not understanding of the difference between running a company and running a country. Hence his love of protectionism. He has zero principles. He is not right wing, left wing or anything like that. He is a text book definition of a pragmatist. he's willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, and he comes close to not knowing he is lying because he's never really thought in terms of truth, or in terms of the importance of ideas. Is post-modernism could birth a child with Capone, the product would be Trump.

There's a lot to unravel in your post, so I'll focus only one one aspect: every protectionist that ever existed, has based it on a view of "what's good for my country". You seem to be contrasting two attitudes: America should do what's best for the world, even sacrificing its own interests at times; vs. America must look out for its own interests, first and foremost Just having that second orientation does not mean one will do better than the other orientation. One might think that theoretically it should be better, but it does not turn out that way in practice. Further, nationalism is not rational selfishness. The lone wolf trying to steal what he can from everyone else is not the answer to altruism.

Yes. My guess is "CapitalismMagazine" was the one with the most hits, and also the one that has had the most collaboration with other Objectivist-leaning sites.

Great to hear, that they got this traction. You're always going to find such groups are a mix. After all, you have just average folk, with average (and mostly implicit philosophies) trying to make a case. If not for a physical condition, they would likely be arguing the opposite side of the case. Nevertheless, in pressure group warfare, other things matter: how many people in the group, how much noise they can make to their individual Congressmen, how good an emotionally moving a story they can weave, how they choose their battles (e.g. finding some legislators who can use them to make his arguments, as much as they can use him to make them in the right venue). Indeed, if one takes the title of this thread literally as "how does one live in a country that bans something that is important to you, the two main answers are: Find a way to get that thing anyhow (outside the country, or illegally inside the country) Find a way to change the law: which typically means forming a pressure group to advocate for change

I'm glad you can do this. Are there patient groups, or patient forums, of people who have a shared interest in changing the law here.?Fighting against vested interests is hard, but organizing -- like labor unions do -- is one of the approaches that has a chance.

With the popularity of "behavioral economics", there are some good books on the "non-rational" factors that go into decision-making. I'd start there, before going into neuroscience -- which would be the next level of detail...if you want to delve further. Influence - by Cialdini, (very short and sweet read) and Thinking Fast and Slow - Kahneman (more academic)

Is the procedure allowed in Europe, or elsewhere?

The context would be just your average citizen or legal immigrant: so, no serious disabilities. I suppose one should add the caveat that the context would be someone who has most of their life before them: to learn and earn. To be clear, the U.S. is not the only country where the average person can have a fairly comfortable life, Most of Western Europe would qualify, as would Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The recently-Third world is a bit different. There are still very large proportions of their populations that are very destitute and have few mechanism to change that. Still, even in places like China and India (per capita GDP of $8K and $2K respectively, the upper middle class -- at per capita still below the U.S. -- are able to lead comfortable and happy lives.

I know you have mentioned your personal context in other topics, but it is hard for people to keep track. You should have reminded us of your personal context in the opening post. Otherwise a question like "How do I live in a country..this evil?" will be interpreted in a general "average person" context: particularly if the concrete being highlighted impacts a small portion of the population. In your context, since you are within that portion, the issue is critical to you. Best to make that context clear. It is totally coherent that a particular country may be the best country to live in, from the context of one person, and a pretty lousy country to live in for another. A slave (with internet access) in 1777 could have asked: "How can I live in a country that is so evil as to make me a slave"? Some immigrants also face such heavily context-based questions. The same for you. This topic probably needs a re-boot, as: "How do I live in a country that denies me a chance to medical treatments that could hugely benefit my life?" If the law absolutely denies access to some supposed cure, then it is clearly evil. One cannot point to it's more plausible intent to "protect patents". Anyone who wanted to protect patients would different laws. They may enact laws about what warnings have to be in place, and enact laws to ensure that patient consent is genuine and informed. What are laws like, regarding adult stem cell therapy? As a patient, are there some specific treatments that you would like to try, but to which you are denied access, absolutely, regardless of any right-to-sue etc. that you are willing to sign away?

Yes. In the context of the OP, "doomsday" probably means something like German pre-WW2 hyper-inflation.

Where is this debate and news? When I turn on the TV, channels are reporting that a Trump staffer was a wife beater. But, not just that: that is only background. The bulk of the discussion is about whether the White House knew and how they acted on the knowledge. But, even there, a lot is about what they knew and how they spun the story in public. Switch from the Democratic channel to the Republican channel and it is more of the same. Occasionally, you have things like taxes or immigration make it back to TV news. The thing to remember on these topics is that rhetoric is not the same as action. Trump says he'll build a border wall, but it is in his political advantage to come up for re-election saying the Democrats obstructed him, and if you elect him one more time -- along with a few more Republicans (or "better" Republicans) -- he will build it the next time around. You can really rest comfortably in the knowledge that after both sides have staked out this position or that, the actual ship will move in one direction or the other, but not too much. Paying close attention does not have any utility: it's just a modern day genre of soap-opera. (The exception is when something targets you directly: e.g. if you are an immigrant and have to make decisions, and need to figure out the precise details of what is playing out.) When it comes to news watching and debate following, my advice would be to do less of it. Give yourself some objective rule: like no news and debate of certain days of the week, or whatever works. Instead, pick up an actual long-form book and read it. Even if you choose a book about crises (lol), odds are it will still pay off more than paying attention to things you will not remember happened a few years from now, and won't impact your life too much more than the average impacts you can expect anyhow.

Two points here: If all you have is a theory of why something ought to work out a certain way, it's very weak. You need to have historical evidence of how there have been repeated episodes where the theory was shown to be true. This still does not prove the theory, but it is a basic requirement for taking it seriously 10 years is not enough. You have a lifetime to live, so you should look at a few lifetimes worth of historical evidence. Visualize yourself during the Great depression: Roosevelt is confiscating gold, enacting social-security, imposing all sorts of ridiculous rules on businesses. Finally, you are making decisions within the context of your lifetime. Imagine you see some causal factor that created some end result reliably, from the Roman empire down to today. But, imagine it took 400 years to play our from cause to effect, and in your judgement you are in year 90 of such an episode. How much does it really impact the decisions you should be making in the context of your lifetime? Gold should not be considered an "investment" in a core sense. Of course, if market values of productive assets are too high (in your judgement), then it makes sense to "park" your assets in a "store of value'. Doomsday scenarios sell, but your best bet is that they will not take place. Of course spending beyond one's means is bound to cause a problem some day in the future, but that's abstract enough to be useless as a decision-making tool. You have to flesh it out with concretes. Someone spending a small percent more than they take in is in a different position that someone more profligate. Both will eventually hit rock bottom, but time-horizons vary. Also, possible solutions vary. In a mixed-economy, when shit hits the fan, the democracy will typically take assets from those who did not get too hard, and redistribute it to those who were screwed. Consider what the Saudi king just did. He needed money, so he arrested a bunch of the richest guys in the kingdom, and told them they have to give the government money. probably raised about $100 billion in a few months. Democracies do these things with politeness and a softer glove. To be clear, history would say we should expect booms and busts, with occasional panics at a rate of (say) a couple in each investor's lifetime. But, that's different from doomsday scenarios.

Isn't it true that if a country let one little bit of statism inform its principles, then it is statist in principle? Analogously for a person. It sounds like you're saying all existing countries are evil, and most people are evil too? But, more importantly, you seem to imply that there's no gradation of evil? Is that what you're saying? That gradations are either incoherent or useless?

The way to tackle this question is: as a biologist. E.g. what is an instinct, in manifestation? what is our hypothesis of the mechanism that gives rise to them? how are they distinguished from non-instinctual behaviors in non-humans?

Many of Petersen's rules are things an Objectivist could get behind, at least for the most part. Indeed, much of his advice has been said by various other self-help authors. A few days ago, a centrist-Democrat friend (Hillary voter, who originally thought Obama was a bit too much to the left, but later thought he'd mostly stayed centrist), was praising Petersen. I knew this was someone who had not learnt of Petersen via his politics. Even though Petersen came to Youtube popularity on the back of his fight for free-speech in Canada, and even though he has been championed by "the right" and by "libertarian left rebels", politics is not his strength. He's best when he has his psychologist's hat on. I think there's a lesson here for future Objectivist intellectuals. To break through to a wide audience, one has to speak to how people can lead better, more fulfilled, lives as individuals. Put free-markets on the back burner, not as an unmentionable or anything like that. Rather, stress what is really important and is much more easily possible to all individuals: to lead happier lives in this world in which they find themselves. Since the context of such advice is typically western societies, or even countries like India (and dare I say, China), where individual success and happiness is accessible to most... this is a more productive place to focus. Anyway, if anyone is interested, here is Petersen, introducing his book.