Doug Morris

The crucial reason history has worked out so badly so far is that people have had too little in the way of good ideas to guide them, and too much in the way of bad ideas.   Ayn Rand has provided better ideas which, once they become widely enough known, will make better results possible.
There is plenty of data about how people perform when the mysticism/altruism/collectivism axis of ideas dominates the culture.  How much data is there about how people perform when the reason/egoism/individualism axis of ideas dominates the culture?
 

It is not altruism to care about others.  It is altruism to sacrifice oneself for others.
We should use reason alone to achieve knowledge and make decisions.  But in our reasoning we must consider every relevant part of reality, including our own feelings where relevant.
There are irrational people in the world.  To the extent that they have power, it may be necessary to try to understand them for the purpose of judging what they are likely to do.  This is fully consistent with understanding that they should not be irrational.
 

Should we be saying productivity or productiveness?  I understand the latter to refer to the virtue and the former to refer to measuring the amount produced or the rate at which it is produced.  A quick peek at the Ayn Rand lexicon indicates that this is how she uses the words.
 

No, you still must produce what you need.

Peikoff's key point about Kelley is to class Kelley with those who "reject the concept of “objectivity” and the necessity of moral judgment" and "sunder fact and value, mind and body, concepts and percepts".  I'm not convinced that Peikoff was right to class Kelley in this way.
It seems to me that Peikoff and Kelley are using the phrase "closed system" in different senses.  If we are to make an important issue of whether Objectivism is "open" or "closed", we need to carefully analyze what this should be taken to mean.  If we are to evaluate Kelley on the basis of this issue, we must make sure we correctly understand what he meant.
 

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?
 

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.
 

Rand's contention with the libertarians at the time dealt with the superficial use of terms, i.e., freedom applied as a floating abstraction to justify a whim. If memory serves, it was this in conjunction with selective quoting of her writings in an attempt to ride on the coattails of the credibility she had established for herself that drew the bulk of her ire.

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.
 

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 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.
 

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

If Webster's or anyone else did this, they are wrong.  There is a clear difference between being anti-vaccine and being anti-mandate.  Being anti-vaccine means holding that vaccines are bad and people shouldn't use them.  Being anti-mandate, in the context of vaccines, means holding that people shouldn't be forced to vaccinate.  This follows from the meaning of the prefix "anti-".
I am anti-draft, but I am not anti-military.
If you are talking to someone who is confused about this, whether because of Webster's or for any other reason, you may need to explain the difference.  If they are too irrational to listen, you won't be able to communicate with them.
 

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

Dangerous hyperbole.
The officials running the election had to run as fair an election as possible during a pandemic which made it dangerous to vote normally.  This had to include giving people safer ways to vote.  It's about a century since the last time this happened.  There is evidence that some of them made mistakes.  There is no evidence of a stolen election.
The claim of a stolen election is an arbitrary figment of Trump's need to prop up his pseudo-self-esteem.
 

World Business Markets Breakingviews Video More
        2020 CANDIDATE SLIDESHOWS SEPTEMBER 11, 20203:22 PMUPDATED 2 YEARS AGO Fact check: Clarifying Trump’s 80 million ‘unsolicited’ ballots claim
By Reuters Staff
9 MIN READ
With 54 days until the Nov. 3 presidential election, President Donald Trump said on Twitter ( here ) and Facebook ( here ) on Thursday that 80 million mail-in ballots were being sent to voters who had not requested them, calling the situation “unfair and a total fraud in the making.” While certain states are automatically sending ballots to their voters for this election, in many others, these still need to be requested.
      U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event at MBS International Airport, in Freeland, Michigan, U.S., September 10, 2020. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst Voting by mail has a long history of reliability in the United States, serving as the primary method of voting in Colorado, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Hawaii, which automatically send registered voters mail-in ballots. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, California, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. have introduced the same procedure for the 2020 vote ( here ) .
Benjamin Hovland, commissioner of the independent, bipartisan U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC,  here , www.eac.gov/about-the-useac ) echoed to Reuters via phone that “in more states than ever, election authorities will automatically send a ballot to each registered voter.” 
According to Reuters’ calculations, there are an estimated 44.2 million registered voters, or about half the number mentioned by President Trump, in the 10 states and jurisdictions automatically sending out ballots for the Nov. 3 election.
Reuters found this number by adding up the latest available voter registration statistics for Colorado ( here ); Hawaii, ( here ); Oregon ( here ); Utah ( here ); Washington ( here ); California ( here ); Washington, D.C ( here ); Nevada ( here ); New Jersey ( here ); and Vermont ( here ). 
“On the states where these ballots are sent automatically, those were state-legislated decisions to make those policies,” Commissioner Hovland said, adding that “those states have implemented security measures on their respective mail-in processes.”
For the remaining states not sending out proactive ballots, Hovland noted “votes still require an affirmative request from the voter.” The millions of voters in these states would have to actively solicit or request a ballot.
  It is possible that Trump’s 80 million unsolicited ballot claim stemmed from an Aug. 14 analysis from the New York Times ( here ), which stated that experts predict “roughly 80 million mail ballots will flood election offices this fall.”  
The president first mentioned this figure during his Labor Day press conference on Sept. 7, referring to “the issuance of 80 million ballots, unrequested” as “the dirtiest fight of all”  ( here ).
Linking the high volume of “unsolicited” mail ballots to voter fraud, he said, “People are going to get ballots; they’re going to say, ‘What am I doing?’ And then they’re going to harvest. They’re going to do all the things.”
The claim feeds into a narrative echoed by President Trump that mail-in voting, expected to nearly double due to the COVID-19 pandemic, will increase voter fraud ( here ).  
After weeks of repeatedly raising concerns about mail-in voting, Trump on Aug. 4 called Florida’s election system “Safe and Secure, Tried and True” and urged voters in the Republican state to vote by any means, including by mail ( here).  
Experts say that election fraud is very rare in the United States, where nearly one in four voters cast a mail-in or absentee ballot in 2016 (here).  
There are multiple layers of security in place for mail-in ballots, also known as “absentee” ballots, including the Electronic Registration Information Center ( www.ericstates.org ) and adherence to the National Voter Registration Act’s list of maintenance procedures ( here , here). 
  The National Conference of State Legislatures provides information on home voting, including a section on security features in place here .  
Measures to counter voter fraud include hand-marked paper ballots, signature verification, examining and processing ballots ahead of election day to allow for more verification time, up-to-date address information, security cameras during storage, and many more (see Security Features of Voting by Absentee/Mailed Ballots section here bit.ly/33vUvBA ).
Further information on security measures to ensure ballot integrity can be found here .  
Commissioner Hovland told Reuters these sort of unfounded claims “ignore the repeated calls of elections professionals, both Democrat and Republican, that say this is a safe, normal process with procedures in place to ensure the process upholds the integrity of an election.”
The Reuters Fact Check team has previously debunked several viral claims linking the use of mail-in ballots to voter fraud: here , here , and here . 
VERDICT
False. 80 million “unsolicited” mail-in ballots will not be sent to voters ahead of the 2020 presidential election. Ten states and jurisdictions are proactively sending out ballots, some for the first time due to the coronavirus pandemic, for an approximately 44.2 million registered voters in total.
This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here . 
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
        TRENDING STORIES
 
Authentication services firm Okta says it is investigating report of breach  
El Salvador postpones bitcoin bond issue, expects better conditions  
Fact Check-Women’s swimming contest photo shared ‘out of context’, says pictured athlete  
Fact Check-Video clip on social media does not show Russian hypersonic Kinzhal missile launch in March 2022    
Quantum startup Sandbox AQ spins off from Alphabet, gains 'nine figures' in funding   Apps Newsletters Advertise with Us Advertising Guidelines Cookies Terms of Use Privacy Do Not Sell My Personal Information All quotes delayed a minimum of 15 minutes. See here for a complete list of exchanges and delays.
© 2022 Reuters. All Rights Reserved.

A quick search for "truck driver" brought back 4 references.
The first was the diner she went into after telling the driver to stop in a not so good section of town.
"The stories they tell you when you're young—about the human spirit. There isn't any human spirit. Man is just a low-grade animal, without intellect, without soul, without virtues or moral values. An animal with only two capacities: to eat and to reproduce."
His gaunt face, with staring eyes and shrunken features that had been delicate, still retained a trace of distinction. He looked like the hulk of an evangelist or a professor of esthetics who had spent years in contemplation in obscure museums.
She wondered what had destroyed him, what error on the way could bring a man to this.
"You go through life looking for beauty, for greatness, for some sublime achievement," he said. "And what do you find? A lot of trick machinery for making upholstered cars or inner-spring mattresses."
"What's wrong with inner-spring mattresses?" said a man who looked like a truck driver. "Don't mind him, lady. He likes to hear himself talk. He don't mean no harm."
The second was a reference to Midas Mulligan by Lee Hunsacker to Dagny Taggert.
She sat up straight. "Midas Mulligan?"
"Yea—the banker who looked like a truck driver and acted it, too!"
The third was the individual in the valley.
The roughneck was watching them from above, listening with curiosity. She glanced up at him, he looked like a truck driver, so she asked, "What were you outside? A professor of comparative philology, I suppose?"
"No, ma'am," he answered. "I was a truck driver." He added, "But that's not what I wanted to remain."
Interesting to note that the man in the diner, Midas Mulligan and the man Dagny observed were stated to have "looked like a truck driver." Aside from Lee Hunsacker's voicing the evaluation, the other two evaluations were privy to the reader. The man in the valley only stated he was a truck driver after he was asked if he was a professor of comparative philology.
 
 

Climate-change catastrophist Alan Cole posits his theory about [w]hy America can't build quickly anymore, opening with the following:Much later, he notes the following coincidence, which is amusing when one considers that the environmentalist movement accounts for both the problem and the frustration:Not being a conservative, my desire to indulge in Schadenfreude or "own the libs" is quite limited. So, yes, it is humorous in a very narrow context to imagine this central planner stopped in her tracks by the very mechanisms her fellow travelers have put in place.

But the fact remains that the problem -- correctly diagnosed at the political level by Full Stack Economics as a "dispersed [regulatory and legal] power structure filled with veto points that lends itself to ... paralysis" -- has been preventing America from building such vital infrastructure as nuclear power plants, highways, and oil refineries for quite some time.

It is tempting to imagine that greens might get behind efforts to streamline the regulatory apparatus so Americans can build big things again, but recall that these are the same people who demand wind power or hydro and then complain about windmills killing birds or try to dismantle the dams.

That said, the fact that this issue is coming up is a good thing: Reasonable people need to discuss this issue and work towards a solution, and not because of the latest prediction of planetary doom: Our lives, standard of living, and ability to defend ourselves all stand to be compromised at the least if we continue to accept this state of affairs.

If the Berlin Wall showed the real-time difference between (semi-)capitalism and central planning, this glance across American history does just as well, although over time. It makes it clear that American industry has been paralyzed by environmental regulations and an out-of-control court system for quite some time -- and that we are running out of time to avoid some painful consequences.

-- CAVLink to Original

All philosophy is ultimately about how to flourish as a human being.  It is a very bad blunder to equate this question to questions about who gets to be the boss in society.
No one should rule over anyone.
This should be decided by a truly free market, not by politics.  In a truly free market, a person will have to be a lot more productive than a toilet cleaner to get to the corner office and to keep it.
This is a noble statement.
It makes sense that they would do this.  Of course, they are badly mistaken about what the truth is.  Also they tend to have unrealistic, simplistic notions of what it should take to win someone over.
Trying to understand what could cause the end of civilization and what will help it flourish in the long run, and trying to understand the role of religion and philosophy in causing or preventing the end of the world, and trying to help others understand these things, can accomplish very much indeed, but over a long time frame.
 

System building rests on the assumption that reality is a closed system, i.e. that facts are aspects of a larger picture, and merging them will reveal that picture. An 'open system' is an oxymoron.
The term 'open', when applied to a system, means that its application to various issues is open to options.
For example, Objectivism advocates the primacy of existence. It is not open to views which rest necessarily on the primacy of consciousness. In this, and other issues regarding fundamentals, it's closed.
In regard to its application to concrete cases, such as a romance, hobbies and political events, it allows for a variety of options and applications, which is why some disagreements are possible. In this, it is open.
Hearsay is never conductive to any fruitful conclusion or discussion. Always go straight to the source.
Relevant: Peikoff answers this question
Ditto for Objectivism being 'built on the chassis' of Aristotle. That's false. Agreeing with someone on big issues is a completely separate issue from building a system on top of his system.
On this matter, one resource I suggest is the course 'Objectivism Through Induction', available for free on the ARI website. There, Rand's methodology of system-building is explained.

I have neither seen The Shawshank Redemption nor read the book I understand it to be based on, so I will have to engage in guesswork based on your post.
If he gets pleasure and satisfaction from seeing other inmates better themselves and knowing he played a crucial role in this, that could be benefit enough, especially when you consider the limitations on expenditure of time and effort imposed by the prison.
This does seem like altruism, unless he got enough out of it to make it worth the punishment.
If he values his friend enough to make this worthwhile for him, it is not altruism.
***
If Andy Dufresne does a good job of living up to his principles and values, this speaks well for him, even if those principles and values are mistaken.  In her very favorable introduction to Victor Hugo's Ninety-Three, Ayn Rand says the focus is not "What great values these men are fighting for" but "What greatness men are capable of when they fight for their values".
The hero of Anthem initially intends his invention, at least consciously, as a gift to the society in which he lives.  At one point he suffers a severe beating for not making it back in time from working on his invention.  Only after his invention is rejected does he flee that society and discover full egoism.
 

I have neither seen The Shawshank Redemption nor read the book I understand it to be based on, so I will have to engage in guesswork based on your post.
If he gets pleasure and satisfaction from seeing other inmates better themselves and knowing he played a crucial role in this, that could be benefit enough, especially when you consider the limitations on expenditure of time and effort imposed by the prison.
This does seem like altruism, unless he got enough out of it to make it worth the punishment.
If he values his friend enough to make this worthwhile for him, it is not altruism.
***
If Andy Dufresne does a good job of living up to his principles and values, this speaks well for him, even if those principles and values are mistaken.  In her very favorable introduction to Victor Hugo's Ninety-Three, Ayn Rand says the focus is not "What great values these men are fighting for" but "What greatness men are capable of when they fight for their values".
The hero of Anthem initially intends his invention, at least consciously, as a gift to the society in which he lives.  At one point he suffers a severe beating for not making it back in time from working on his invention.  Only after his invention is rejected does he flee that society and discover full egoism.
 

Trump tweeted in 2019 that Alabama was one of the states at greater risk from Hurricane Dorian than had been initially forecast. The federal weather office in Birmingham then tweeted that, actually, Alabama would be unaffected by the storm. Not great, but fixable fast with a simple White House correction. Trump, however, is so congenitally unwilling to admit error that he embarked on an increasingly farcical campaign to prove that his incorrect Alabama tweet was actually correct, eventually showcasing a hurricane map that was crudely altered with a Sharpie. The slapstick might have been funny had White House officials not leaped into action behind the scenes to try to pressure federal weather experts into saying he was right and they were wrong. The saga proved that Trump was not some lone liar: he was backed by an entire powerful apparatus willing to fight for his fabrications.   The most ridiculous subject of a lie: The Boy Scouts When I emailed the Boy Scouts of America in 2017 about Trump's claim that "the head of the Boy Scouts" had called him to say that his bizarrely political address to the Scouts' National Jamboree was "the greatest speech that was ever made to them," I didn't expect a reply. One of the hardest things about fact checking Trump was that a lot of people he lied about did not think it was in their interest to be quoted publicly contradicting a vengeful president. The Boy Scouts did. A senior Scouts source -- a phrase I never expected to have to type as a political reporter in Washington, DC -- confirmed to me that no call ever happened. Yep, the President of the United States was lying about the Boy Scouts.   The ugliest smear lie: Rep. Ilhan Omar supports al Qaeda At a White House event in 2019, Trump grossly distorted a 2013 quote from Rep. Ilhan Omar to try to get his supporters to believe that the Minnesota Democrat had expressed support for the terrorist group al Qaeda. Trump went on to deliver additional bigoted attacks against Omar in the following months. But it's hard to imagine a more vile lie for the President to tell about a Muslim official -- who had already been getting death threats -- than a smear that makes her sound pro-terrorist.   When he told reporters on Air Force One in 2018 that he did not know about a $130,000 payment to porn performer Stormy Daniels and that he did not know where his then-attorney Michael Cohen got the money for the payment, it was both audacious -- Trump knew, because he had personally reimbursed Cohen -- and kind of conventional: the President was lying to try to get himself out of a tawdry scandal.   The biggest lie by omission: Trump ended family separation Much of Trump's lying was clumsy, half-baked. Some of it was almost art. Here's what he told NBC's Chuck Todd in 2019 about his widely controversial policy of separating migrant parents from their children at the border: "You know, under President Obama you had separation. I was the one that ended it." Yes, Trump signed a 2018 order to end the family separation policy. What he did not mention to Todd is that what he had ended was his own policy -- a plan announced by his own attorney general that had made family separation standard rather than occasional, as it had been under Obama. All of Trump's words in those two sentences to Todd were accurate in themselves. But he was lying because of what he left out.   When Trump claimed in September that Biden would destroy protections for people with pre-existing health conditions -- though the Obama-Biden administration created the protections, though the protections were overwhelmingly popular, though Biden was running on preserving them, and though Trump himself had tried repeatedly to weaken them -- Trump was not merely lying but turning reality upside down.   Trump could have told a perfectly good factual story about the Veterans Choice health care program Obama signed into law in 2014: it wasn't good enough, so he replaced it with a more expansive program he signed into law in 2018. That's not the story he did tell -- whether out of policy ignorance, a desire to erase Obama's legacy, or simply because he is a liar. Instead, he claimed over and over -- more than 160 times before I lost count -- that he is the one who got the Veterans Choice program passed after other presidents tried and failed for years. And why not stretch? He knew he probably wouldn't be challenged by a press corps drowning in other Trump drama. It wasn't until August 2020 that he was asked about the lie to his face. He promptly left the room.    lie: Trump was once named Michigan's Man of the Year Trump has never lived in Michigan. Why would he have been named Michigan's Man of the Year years before his presidency? He wouldn't have been. He wasn't. And yet this lie he appeared to have invented in the final week of his 2016 campaign became a staple of his 2020 campaign, repeated at Michigan rally after rally. It's so illustrative because it makes so little sense.    

It rained during Trump's inaugural address. Then, at a celebratory ball later that day, Trump told the crowd that the rain "just never came" until he finished talking and went inside, at which point "it poured."       Fact check: Trump falsely claims US has 'tremendous control' of the coronavirus
By Daniel Dale
 
Updated 9:35 PM ET, Sun March 15, 2020
  Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump made yet another false claim to minimize the severity of the coronavirus crisis, claiming Sunday that the virus is under "control."
Trump's claim at a White House briefing -- "It's a very contagious virus. It's incredible. But it's something we have tremendous control of" -- was sharply at odds with the assessment of public health experts, including one who appeared with him at the same briefing. Facts First: Experts say the US does not have the virus even close to contained. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in his own comments after Trump left the room: "The worst is yet ahead for us. It is how we respond to that challenge that is going to determine what the ultimate end point is going to be. We have a very, very critical point now." Trump has repeatedly claimed, falsely, to have the virus under control. He said in late January, soon after the US announced its first confirmed case, that "we have it totally under control." He said in late February, when the number of confirmed US cases was in the low dozens, that "we have it very much under control in this country."