Doug Morris

Here is what David Kelley said at the end of A Question of Sanction about "closed". Ayn Rand left us a magnificent system of ideas. But it is not a closed system. It is a powerful engine of integration. Let us not starve it of fuel by shutting our minds to what is good in other approaches. Let us test our ideas in open debate. If we are right, we have nothing to fear; if we are wrong, we have something to learn. Above all, let us encourage independent thought among ourselves. Let us welcome dissent, and the restless ways of the explorers among us. Nine out of ten new ideas will be mistakes, but the tenth will let in the light. It seems to me clear that he is saying that we should not stop with what Ayn Rand left us. We should engage in ongoing study, learning, and debate. He is not saying that the results of such ongoing study, learning, and debate will be part of Ayn Rand's ideas. He is not addressing the question of how the label "Objectivism" should be used. What is so terrible about what he said?

What, exactly, did Kelley say? Was he introducing the concept of "open Objectivism" and "closed Objectivism", or was he responding to what someone else said about them? How did he define them?

There seem to be a variety of definitions of "open" and "closed" Objectivism. I did not see the original debate, but it looks suspiciously to me as though the distinction was badly defined from the beginning. Given this and the point that the open/closed debate grew out of an argument about libertarianism, I thought I would throw out yet another possible definition for whatever it's worth for possible inclusion in the mix. The "closed" view holds that relatively concrete conclusions arrived at by applying Objectivist principles to what Ayn Rand and/or Leonard Peikoff and/or Peter Schwartz thought libertarianism was are part of the philosophy and/or a good litmus test of how consistently a person follows true Objectivism. The "open" view denies this and says that a person can disagree with what Ayn Rand and/or Leonard Peikoff and/or Peter Schwartz thought libertarianism was, and therefore come up with different conclusions applying Objectivist principles to it, and still be a good, consistent Objectivist.

If we are to have an objective context for Objectivist political theory, we probably need both an objective definition of politics and an objective definition of government.

Eiuol's approach raises the question, what are cities and law, do we need them, and why? Can we answer this without referring to the other two approaches? All three approaches raise the question, what is coordination, do we need it, and why? (Here I am borrowing some wording from what Ayn Rand said about values.)

I see at least three concepts of politics here. The broadest, advocated by Grames and Boydstun, covers action coordinated among different individuals. This requires at least two individuals. "Coordination" here may be voluntary on the part of each individual or may be imposed by someone against someone else's will, as in rape and dictatorship. One somewhat narrower, advocated by Dream_Weaver, covers situations in which there is at least a potential for a party to interfere with, or govern, coordination between other parties. This requires at least three individuals. The narrowest of the three, advocated by Eiuol, refers to cities in an Aristotelian sense and to law. This requires considerably more people.

How did a disagreement about libertarianism turn into a debate about "open" vs. "closed"?

Do you have to have law, or something like it, to have a city?

I agree. For this to be right behavior on her grandfather's part, there would have to be a very big difference between the father and the uncle.

This is determined in complicated ways. But philosophy has a big effect, especially in the long run. To the extent that this is true, it is because religion is a primitive form of philosophy, and a primitive form of philosophy that is not too destructive tends to win over a purely implicit philosophy. This depends on what sort of atheism and what goes with it. Stalin's atheism and what he had along with it was horribly disfunctional, and Khrushchev's and Brezhnev's were only a little better. An atheist who embraces a morality of self-sacrifice is little different from a "mainstream" Christian. An atheist who has little to offer beyond rejecting religion will be left floundering.

Human beings have evolved in such a way that, unlike all other known organisms, we need philosophy. If we don't have an explicit philosophy, we'll have an implicit one.

Physics has achieved much more in the way of clarity and consensus than politics has. It would be perfectly legitimate to ask "What is a good definition of physics?"

Can a college campus be a city? Can a city include surrounding countryside?

Is politics the process by which it is determined what government will do and/or who will run the government? If so, we will need to define "government". Lots of people will reject Ayn Rand's definition. Do we then need to come up with a more general and/or vaguer definition of government that will accomodate competing theories? A first stab at such a definition is "government is the most powerful institution in a society" or, more narrowly, "government is an institution that most people in a society usually obey". Or would we need to say "usually at least pretend to obey"? The word "politics" is also used in extended senses such as office politics or church politics. I am assuming we want to exclude those.

Can we draw a distinction between upper-case Libertarianism, which has to do with the Libertarian party, and lower-case libertarianism, which may be more general? Before I joined this forum I thought of libertarianism as a somewhat general term for advocacy of strictly limited government, with the political part of Objectivism as a subcategory. I gather it is not always used this way. In particular, I gather some people would define libertarianism in a way that excludes Objectivism. How widespread is this practice? How much consistency is there in the way that libertarianism is defined to exclude Objectivism?

Is there a link to this?

I probably should make clear that she refers only to the article he wrote "that dismissed non-Western cultures as inferior". She does not mention anything about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Maxine Joselow has changed her anti-Epstein article and published the changed version. She acknowledges Epstein's reply to the original article. She does not call him a "racist", but does use the words "ethnocentric", "paternalistic", and "colonialist". She still brings up his writings from more than two decades ago.

This varies greatly with the individual case. From WebMD: A CDC study released on Tuesday showed nine deaths per 1,000 cases during the Omicron surge, compared to 13 deaths per 1,000 cases during the Delta surge and 16 deaths per 1,000 cases during last winter’s deadly surge. (Total deaths are higher with Omicron because it spreads so easily.)

No such detail. The only other statement I recall is that the bill would also raise prices.

I think it's immoral to outlaw meth, heroin, cocaine, ... But I'm sure as hell not going to use them on principle.

Apparently the publication of Maxine Joselow's hit piece has at least been delayed. I just looked at the Washington Post page that lists what she has written for the Post, including something dated today, and it's not there. It's not listed among the book reviews either.

Thank you, dream_weaver, but I was hoping for something more specific on how the bill would, or perhaps would not, affect Amazon Prime's guarantee of two-day delivery.

I have seen ads on TV stating that bill S2992 would prevent Amazon Prime from guaranteeing two-day delivery. I did a very small amount of research and found the following in the Wikipedia article on the bill: The legislation also aims to prevent Amazon from "self-preferencing" their own products at the expense of those sold by third parties.[9] Does anyone know more about this?

Is this the fault of the people running the election or the fault of the post office? Is this the fault of the people running the election or the fault of voters who messed up the address on their registration?