Sherry

Well, welcome to the board. I think that understanding what self-interest really is, is very important. Remember, John Gault and Roark did a few things that may not have seemed to be in their self interest in the short term. For example, wouldn't it have been in Gault's self interest to force Dagne to stay at the Gulch when he had her there the first time? He loved her then. But it wasn't. Gault was a long range thinker and realized that it wouldn't be worth it, it wouldn't truly be in his self-interest to have her there unless it was her choice. I believe someone else recommended it, but you should really read Rand's essay on "The Ethics Of Emergencies".The Virtue of Selfishness, (pb: 47).It is very good, and covers a lot of these questions, and you will understand why you have gotten many of the answer you did. Actually, if you have not read it all ready, I think The Virtue of Selfishness is a great book of her essays to start with, since, well the them of the book is selfishness, or what self interest is. Also, the OPAR book I referred to earlier was Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. It's been very helpful to me. The Romantic Manifesto is good too (I haven't read all of it yet) but deals mostly with aesthetics. I don't think you will get a lot of your questions answered in that particular book. If you have not already, check out the topic search feature at ARI's site. Here is the link: Suggested Reading & Topic Search It has a list of suggested reading, but if you look to the left, you click on Topic Search. Type in a word or phrase, and it will refer you to an essay or other piece of work to read.

Yes...nothing wrong with hawgs...my brother in law is very much into them. Though, not, unfortunately, Objectivism. He used to work for Harley though, doing the custom bike paint jobs. We drive a 2000 Durango, nothing fancy. However, this is my main ride: Oh wait...I have a whole set up...kinda like a rickshaw thing going hahah: That's my 6 year old daughter. She likes to sit in the trailer and take videos. I am hoping to save up enough money to buy an old diesel Mercedes, something from perhaps the 75 to 85 time period and experiment with using waste veggie oil as fuel. I am quite fascinated by that whole thing.

Back to the orphan with the bread...I say leave get up and go look for food. Seriously. And regardly the fat guy with the bad heart: no, I don't think someone with a thorough understanding and who really lived as an Objectivist would scam old people out of money to get a heart operation. Read "My thirty years with Ayn Rand". Rand taught Peikoff a very valuable lesson about honesty I think that would apply even in this situation. (It is at the end of the book "Voice of Reason") If the guy Objectivist is sucessful in getting the operation, he then has to live in fear of still getting caught, and then going to jail, and not getting the proper medical follow up care he needs that you usually require after receiving such surgery. Also, what if he loses those that he values in his life because they found out he destroyed others in order to gain the heart? Would that truly be not be requiring others to sacrifice for you? Objectivist are not such short range thinkers, even in emergencies. Chapter 7 in OPAR "The Good" discusses this quite well, actually (pages 213 on I believe). So, Joe should understand that NO it isn't in his best interest to scam people to get the operation. That's my take on the situation.

I just finished readig his book "Give Me A Break", and I plan or reading his new book that just recently came out. I grew up watching Stossel on 20/20 as a whiney consumer rights reporter, and was happy when he grew into a more objective reporter. When I started studying Objectivism last year, I was surprised, and pleased to see that many would refer to him as an Objectivist, and I saw some references to him mentioning Rand's work. I have never seen anything to show he calls himself one, though he admires Atlas Shrugged, Rand, and seems to be pretty tight with David Kelly and The Objectivist Center. (He quotes Kelly in his book a few times and mentions the center. He was even on one of his specials. If you type "John Stossel" and "Objectivist" into Google.com, you will pull up likes with him and David Kelly and/or the Objectivist Center all over the place. Me thinks he could use some balancing with ARI, but hey, that's another story.) But I cannot see anything in the book that even hints at any serious study of Objectivism on his part. I was disappointed by that. By what I had read on other websites and discussion boards, it sounded like Stossel was an Objectivist. I made the mistake of assuming he was from the articles he has written, and from of the posts I have read online at various discussion boards. I figured it would be best to find out for myself. It's still a good book, and I recommend it. However, just with this caveat: While Stossel is friendly to some of Objectivist philosophy and capitalism, he is NOT an Objectivist, nor does he claim to be. Perhaps some would think I am being anal about this. However, in studying Objectivism, it is really easy to allow yourself to be 'stumbled' by things that are written by those that may not have a correct understanding, or may not be in agreement of Objectivism. Had I picked up this book 6 months ago, I would have been totally confused by the some of the laws that Stossel said where part of the proper role of government that Objectivism doesn't seem to teach. Kudos to John Stoseel. He really is a heroic reporter. I do have more respect for him than before I read the book. And I am glad he doesn't claim to be something he is not.

I read that article earlier today, and just sent my husband and son to the library to get his other book "Give Me A Break!" and I am looking forward to reading that. Hopefully I will have time to read the next one as well. It is nice the transition Stossel has made over the years, from whiney reporter in the early days to excellent reporter. It gives me hope, actually. Hope that adults really can change their attitudes when they finally face up to the reality of the world.

PHEW! For a minute there I thought I was going to have to start plucking my eyebrows! I find that people just need to figure out which of these rules they need to obey, like one of the early posts stated..."swim with the current" as long as they are not actually against your principles. My husband and I were in the parking lot of Wal-Mart the other day, and this lady loaded up her car, and just stuck her cart next to her SUV, not bothering to put it in the cart area. Well, as she started backing up, the cart rolled a little, and she was about to hit it. My husband, always the gentlemen, stopped her, moved the cart out of the way, so that she wouldn't hit it. She said thanks and moved on. Now, had she had the manners to put the cart where it belonged this wouldn't have occured. I am not professing 100% that I always put the cart in that cart section, but most of the time, and NEVER would I leave it where it would be in danger of rolling into another car. That really is bad manners to me.

Wow, if that isn't an endorsement, I don't know what is! That's wonderful!

There must have been a great popping sound heard in Washington, DC, as the House of Reps removed their heads from the sand and voted down the net neutrality ammendment 269 to 152. I was reading a few of the blog entries on the http://handsoff.org/ site today. I particularly found the Blame Canada one quite amusing hahah.

well, I think a lot of concerts you are gonig to see that.

How funny! I love Cake! In fact, I was just commenting to my husband the other day that the only way to "have your cake and eat it too" was to listen to Cake while eating cake. (okay bad joke, I know.) Ever watch that cartoon Mission Hill? they do the intro song for it. They are a fun band. I have not seen them in concert, but have watched a live performance on tv before, and would love to see them in person.

very much so hahah!! what can I say, I am a nerd hahah. Maybe we need an Objectivist thesaurus to go with the Rand Lexicon, hahah. I do need more synonyms for irrational and thugs hahah.

I haven't read any of her books yet, but hope to get her Viable Values in the next couple of weeks. I really enjoyed her last lecture that ARI posted online. David, you are a lucky bastard. (I mean that in the nicest way possible, of course.) Has anyone here written a review on Viable Values they would like to share? Or her other works?

WOW...now THAT is commitment hahah. I have started to use more "Objectivist-speak" around people that I have no idea whether they have read any of Rand's work. Kinda a way to see if anyone perks up...see if a connection is made. (I would have never connected with my husband if a reference to HitchHiker's Guide was not made 8 years ago, so I figure it doesn't hurt to try with my new found Objectivist vocab to seek out other people in the general public that may share my love for Rand's work.) This was something that started unknowingly. Having 5 kids, we don't get out a whole lot, and for a while, our social life seemed to be mostly the local Objectivist Meetups we were attending. Then, all of a sudden, we were going to other social functions, or meeting other friends that had nothing to do with the Meetup. One thing I learned is that Objectivist truly are individualists, and no matter how much they value and love Rand's work, they are not going to shove it down your throat like some bible thumper. So, if you meet one at a party unknownly and get to talking, perhaps it can come up naturally just by having a good conversation. Actually, I have been using a much better vocab in conversations the past several months. This isn't really "flair" but a definite improvement that I will attribute to my study of the philosophy. Let's just hope two years from now I can look at my old posts and say, "oh my, thank goodness I write better now!" hahah. I have several tshirt and bumper sticker ideas I am working on right now for my cafe press shop as well. Once I work out the kinks to make sure I am not violating copyright, etc., I am going to order some. I hope my 15 year old will help me design one or two that he will like enough to wear to school.

Chris Noth would be an excellent idea. He definitely has the classic heroic look. Liam does to an extent, but I don' know if he could pull it off?

Welcome! Regarding "outgrowing it". I don't think those that make a true serious study of Objectivism would ever outgrow it. I believe those that do, must have never truly understood it. I am in my mid thirties, myself, however, didn't start studying the philosophy, or even reading Rand's fiction and essays until last year. I wasn't mature enough to handle her work in my teens and twenties I don't think. I just have a hard time understanding how anyone could possibly outgrow it. You have to be at a certain maturity level to even begin I think. This is a great discussion board, I think you will enjoy it here.

THAT was hilarious...oh my gawd....

AHHHH...well, I still need some more edumumicafication. I was aware of what you do for a living, hahah, so I was quite tickled to see you for playing along with me. =) I have never head of Bruce Bagemihl before...just Googled the fellow...wow, he seems to cover some very diverse topics. I never realized something that seemed as silly as Pig Latin could ever be studied seriously. I cannot wait to tell my kids in the morning.

Dark, I am glad you could enjoy the movie for what Dan Brown meant it to be: entertainment and fiction.

OOOOOO! I got most of it without looking anything up, but did have to used the internet for the tougher words. I think it is something like this: "Oddly, I can lecture in Pig Latin despite the fact that they only do his in one class. However, I never learned Obenglobish" (or iobenglob, sometimes referred to as Ubby Dubby, like they did on Zoom. I believe)" and I've been stumped totally by speaker of that variant." I found this pig latin to english translator: http://piglatin.bavetta.com/index.php. It was oddly difficult to find. I guess if there was a great need to say Viagra in Pig Latin it would be easy to find, hahah.

yeah, I think that would be closer to it, perhaps. Because the demand is there, because they got their hands on the funds or credit to create the demand. Whether they actually have the ability to pay back the funds is another story. That's why I refer to it as artificial ability.

I used to be fluent in Pig Latin. I guess I could brush up my skills if needed.

Soooo...the real issue here isn't that there is an artificial demand, because people usually wouldn't get the loans if they didn't want (demand) to buy the product. However, it sounds like the only thing that is artificially created by giving loans to those that may be able to afford them is the artificial ability for the products? No, not trying to coin new words or terms here (and I did study a wee bit of Keynes back in college. I actually thought he was brilliant at the time..but, hey I was 20...and then I went out in the real world, and got a job and grew up.) So the loans don't create any kind of fake demand, no. But they do help increase demand. because these people wouldn't buy the product without these loans. That's what we are getting at in this thread, right? Just trying to understand the gist of it.

Zak, Thanks for posting... you make some excellent points! I especially appreciate them, since you are so close to my son's age. Regarding the computer: He may pay for the computer, but I pay for the internet, and can take that away. The electricity too. (I cannot imagine any of them do anything that would require me taking that away though, hahah...very extreme thought that.) Also, if they are under 18, they need parental permission to have a job outside the house. Depending on the punishment, they won't be in their room anyway, but probably be told to help me with extra chores or something. It all would depend on the situation. This being grounding but chatting online complaining to your friends about thing drives me insane...I find it funny parents allow it. I was worried about the same thing, actually, when we started all this. So far so good. They still fight sometimes, but they do share freely most of the time, and it seems to be easier to settle disagreements. ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! That is something we are working towards, get outdoor more often to do stuff together. Zak, ahhh well tell your mom and dad you have done them proud. =)

Hey there...just found this thread whilst digging through the site. Since Travis (Lathanar) and I have been trying harder to focus on reasoning with our kids, we have noticed a great improvement with how they are figuring stuff out on their own and their behavior. We have 5 kids, from 4 to 15 years old, so we have a lot going on. Previously, we had been giving them, unintentionally of course, a lot of mixed messages of telling them it is okay to be individuals, but at the same time trying to tell them altruism was good and they should be willing to sacrifice things for the greater good at times. "Take one for the team" once in a while, so to speak. Because that is what being a family and being in a society means. Objectivism isn't magic, and I still don't consider myself an Objectivist, but a student of Objectivism, since I have only been studying since the fall. However, it is amazing how just learning to apply some of basics has such a postive impact. Here are a few of the things that I think studying Objectivism has helped us with: - getting our 6 year old to reason on her own that there is no God or Santa (she also said the following to us recently: "With math, you can know everything; Math takes away the unkown." I don't think that has anything to do with Objectivism, but she has this whole math thing going....math and objectivism is a logical mix, though.) - our 10 year old understanding the importance of integrity over popularity - our 8 year old finally understanding that her "need" for the latest Barbie doesn't necessaitate an obligation on our part - our 4 year old...ahhh...well, um...still working on that one...although she has started to ask "can I help daddy wash the car for quarters?" when we are at a store more instead of just whining for me to buy everything she sees. At least some of the time. -15 year old son...he has had a rough year and perhaps has finally getting a hard lesson in JUSTICE. I think we have finally gotten it right. Hopefully this coming school year will be better for all involved. Anyway, that is where we are now. This is a great thread, and though I don't have a lot of competent content to add to it, as it is 4 AM and I am brain dead, I wanted to get it closer to the top of the posts. That way, perhaps another parent, or other interested person could find it. Please keep adding...the more little rational people we put out in the world, the more rational people there will be in the world. (that is as deep as I get this late/early.)

JMegan has an excellent point here. If you are a different person, let your posts reflect who you are now. Let your past stay in the past. If you want to bring it up at a later time when you feel confident that you are really among friends go ahead. There is a tendency today in this world for people to start confessing past sins to total or near strangers, perhaps to help form some kind of instant bond with them. I think that is a bad idea, something that perhaps sprung from self help groups...people just starting applying what went on in the groups to outside. Kinda scary. Finding common ground on negative experience only is usually a bad idea. Objectivism isn't about making yourself looking in other people's eyes or being forgiven by other people. This isn't Catholicism. It is good to have a confidant, someone that understands the philosophy you are trying to live, absolutely! But, perhaps you need to find a few friends to "confess" these too, before you actually do such "confessing" to a bunch of strangers. Perhaps the real problem you have is that you need more understanding of the philosophy you are trying to live. That is where I would focus my energies. After all, if Objectivism is an actual practical, working philosophy that really is for living or earth, than it requires no self sacrfice and shouldn't be so hard to live where you should have to even feel the need to do any confessing. This isn't religion. Check your premises.