always_learning

I find nothing wrong with quoting someone from a private message. If I had reason to believe that she was telling me these things in confidence then I would not have posted them publicly. I am only sharing with you her already public opinion. If you disagree with the closed system then you think things can be added to Objectivism. She gave me specific examples of what she thinks could be added, they include: a full theory of certainty, a theory of moral development, a theory of jurisprudence, further development of the virtues. Objectivism is Objectivism and by its own nature it is a closed system. If you do not think Objectivism is a closed system you think it is open, even if just a crack. No mater how close you are to being right, if you are a slightly wrong you are wrong. She may disagree with Kelly, but she still thinks it is open. This is very apparent.

I have put a little thought in the issue of why the bad guys in so many movies are a business man. While I agree that it most of this stems from their idea that business is evil I also think that in a lot of cases it makes some sense. If your story has an evil man with a lot of resources at his dispense to do evil with where is he supposes to have this income spawn from? One of the simplest ways to explain your evil doer’s cash is to place him in the business world. And while this does make capitalism appear evil the bad guy is never really the honest business man, just like the character he is evil and scheming, like and Ellsworth Toohey. I agree with Richard, usually the story is not about the business being evil, it is usually about good vs. evil. That is something I normally can look past in a film.

MinorityOfOne, This was not the topic being discussed by Diana and myself. This is what she later attempted to make the conversation appear to be. Here is a quote from her in one of our earlier letters. “Although I think the closed system view is mistaken, I do regard it as a far less serious error -- both in principle and in practice -- than Kelley's open system view” The discussion started as me congratulating her on leaving the TOC and my question to her, why she had not become and advocate of ARI. As shown here she thinks Objectivism is not a closed system. However, she also says she does not agree with the open system either. Which is it? I believe she is still attempting to figure this whole situation out because she never explains why or what her real stance is. You cannot disagree with both open and closed system views. As long as she does not agree that Objectivism is a closed philosophy, she believes at least in part that it is open.

Let me start by answering you original question. He does what he can to have to program shut down, assuming he is honest (one could lie in order to have the program canceled), but as long as it’s open he should work there, assuming it is the job he wants and the best job for him. I find my public road analogy to be quite fitting. In most government employment situations, the program that is providing the job has cornered the market, or at least damaged the private sector, on whatever area we are talking about. In the road situation the government has pretty much taken that market. As you pointed out if you did not use the roads your life would suffer. However, I do not think it is a mater of life and death as you stated it was. You can walk to the store, you could grow your own food, or you could order delivery every night. The issue is not the severity of the problems you will suffer by not taking advantage of the government program (eg. life or death situation, or working a job that is not exactly what you want to do when your dream job does exist). The issue is whether it will better your life including morally. Then why have you not gone on strike against the road situation? It is because these two are not the same. The government has taken over the roads not transpiration as a whole.

Not in the long run.

Except that they probably would not want to set that kind of precedent. You would have to avoid the media at all costs to get away with it. I wonder if anyone has tried that.

For those of you who are looking for cheap, used copies of Ayn Rand related books check out Amazon’s used book list. The prices are amazing. I got a copy of The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z for less than $6, including shipping. Check them out.

One thing I have struggled to come up with is a way to collect money to support a military system. The best thing I can come up with is that big companies would most likely willingly give large donations to the military program because it would be in there best interest to keep this country safe. I don’t individuals with an average income freely donating to the military, although some might. However, more wealthy individuals would probable donate some. What do you guys think? Will this work or do you think the optional sales tax/contract free cover all needed costs? Any other ideas?

I have not seen Black Hawk Down since it has been in the theaters, but from what I remember it was good. I remember enjoying it at least, it is full of heroism.

I also thank you for posting the letter. I will make a point of it to direct any who favor Kelly's shenanigans to this letter. I think it explains very well everything that need to be explained on this matter.

There is no shame in working in a government sponsored job and there is nothing unethical about using government programs to aid your life, you pay for them that is part of the package. We would be better off without them, but they are there, use them. Bearster, Do you use public roads? Why is this not a conflict of interest according to your claim?

I think the reason Old Geezer brought up this topic is because it is a lot more interesting than just the typical question of ”Are reporting crimes and testifying in court moral obligations, and if so does that fact justify government in mandating that obligation?”. This particular scenario includes a child who is not capable of making his/her own decisions and the parents, who willingly brought the child into life, are morally responsible for the well being of that child. So the real question is as the decision maker on the behalf of a life should you be required by law to tell authorities about any crimes committed against that individual? My answer to that is NO. Should you be required by law to tell the cops when you, personally, got assaulted by someone? It is up to the individual what the best course of action should be. I can think of plenty examples why I might be in the best interest of the attacked to remain silent. About the caregivers of the elderly, I’m not really sure as to legal roll of the caregiver. Are they the legal guardian, or just some one who works for that individual? Either way the answer is no. Edit: I see that you are talking about hired help and not of legal guardians, opps

You continue to use arguments that have been either demonstrated to you as false or have no relevance to the topic. I will no longer participate in this discussion unless you provide any new ideas on the mater or at least begin to comprehend what you have already been told by either myself or RadCap. I have said my piece on this topic, if you have any question regarding what I have said state them polite and honest manner and I will be happy to answer them.

CF, what song is that? I do not recognize it, I'm just curious to see what the music is like. If it’s like any of her other songs the music will completely demoralize the meaning with its simplicity.

You are getting ridiculous. What will I be stealing from you and the others who start this “Free State”, if I chose to move there sometime in distant future? If this state is created, when I move there, after the fact, what will I have taken that does not belong to me? “And you are going to wait until that point so that everything has to be rebuilt and billions of people die instead of getting involved now?” Yes, I only worry about me. “is this the United States you wish to support” I don’t have to support it to live here. “Do not go gently into that good night...Rage, rage against the dying of the light” Instead of starting another political system lacking an ethical base, I am advocating the spread of one that contains a perfectly sound and explicitly defined ethical system and will not fail once it is in place. “I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property” (but has no foundation because it has not defined, just as the libertarians have not, the purpose for its liberty). This is how I read it. What exactly will I be supporting here, life, liberty, and property, but by whose definition? This is the problem we face today through out America. Finally, you are assuming that people, rational or irrational because you don’t care to ask, have an intellectual basis for liberty or else they would not have to stimulus to participate in this charade? WOW! Rethink that one. Please tell us what this intellectual base you are presuming exists in every individual involved in this project.

About Free State Objectivists, some of the links of this site tell me that lot of people involved in this organization are not really Objectivists.

I said I would consider moving there someday and if I do it will be because it is the freest place to live, enough said. John Galt did what he did because the world was in an unbearable state. Personally I do not think we are in the world of Atlas Shrugged quite yet. If I am free to build my life then that’s what I’ll do, once that freedom is gone so am I.

sklein, I did not know that you worked for TOC just from your first post, and I do not find it to be "obvious" from that post now that I know you work for them. You do show that you have an Emil from their organization but you could just be a supporter of them, another reason one may post what you did. I think your excuse is pretty lame and of the guilty fashion, otherwise you would not have responded to this “ad hominem attack” like you “normally” don’t.

This is regarding my earlier post about Diana Mertz Hsieh. Diana responded to me today stating that she thinks my first post was inaccurate, she also asks that I post this letter to show all of you her response on this issue. I will also take the liberty of addressing her errors in logic that become very apparent in the letter. Due to her request: “Joe, I saw your post on Objectivism Online regarding our e-mail exchange. Your summary was inaccurate and loaded. Since you created this false impression of my views without even informing me, I didn't have the opportunity to correct you in a timely fashion. If I had ever expected that you would so use our brief private discussion, I would not have corresponded with you at all. I have many substantial questions and concerns about the closed system view of Objectivism. I will surely be writing about the issue on my blog in the coming weeks. I will be particularly interested to hear from knowledgeable and thoughtful advocates of the closed system. As always, my basic question will be: What is the identity of Objectivism? Contrary to your summary, I will not be asking anything along the lines of: Can Objectivism be more than it is? Can I put words in Ayn Rand's mouth? Nor will I be asking: Does Objectivism have an identity? Can it be something that it is not? Those are most certainly not legitimate questions in my view. How about you post all that to Objectivism Online -- verbatim -- as the reply you got from me? diana.” As I said before, Diana’s errors lie in that she thinks A can be A and B(edit: Her error is that she thinks A can be not A). Observe, “my basic question will be: What is the identity of Objectivism?” and “I will not be asking anything along the lines of: Can Objectivism be more than it is? Can I put words in Ayn Rand's mouth?”. Diana knows fully that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, she studied it for 10+ years at the TOC. By asking the identity of Objectivism, while knowing it is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, she is asking if Objectivism can be more than it is. This problem is what you will all find to be wrong with the TOC, among other things. I don't really know the stance of SOLO but I'd imagin they are the same.

Whether it’s a true Libertarian organization or not is irrelevant. What really matters is that this free society that is being created will not contain the rational ethical background required to sustain its existence as a free state. This is why I compared it to the USA, look at what this country was intended to be and look at where it is now, then look at which direction it is headed. This being said the USA is still the freest country in the world. So what I really think is that New Hampshire will become, if everything goes well, the freest state in the union and that is why I would consider moving there, but I will wait until it is to really consider it.

I would just like to throw in that I finally saw Laurence of Arabia, It was great. I highly recommend it.

Although I am against the Libertarian backing of this project, obviously I’d prefer an Objectivist backed Free State, I think, if everything goes well, New Hampshire will boom considerably. Any place that becomes freer will prosper. I would even consider moving there someday. This could very well turn out to be a very large step in the right direction, although keep in mind that this is what our founding fathers had in mind when the started this country.

That’s all very nice Slave, but when I comes down to it Bush and Kerry are the only options. Pick your poison. I for one will pick the less deadly of the two (Bush) and hope that he doesn’t kill me, I think my chances are better with Bush than with Kerry. If you don’t pick one you may be forced to drink Kerry’s poison, sure you won’t be to blame but you may be dead and you may come wish you had voted to the least deadly poison.

I am posting this link in order to aid anyone who may be searching for some more knowledge of the subject of ARI vs. toc. This has been posted before, probable more than I know of but here it is again anyway. I hope it can clear up some confusion on the issue. Fact and Value By: Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D.

I have blocked his email, well two of them now. I don't know if this is intentional, but he has used two separate addresses to send me this info. It may be just part of the system that they use, but like you said I’m sure they all use the same list, which means he has refused to remove me from the lists that I asked to be removed from. Added: He sent me another email asking me to direct my request to be removed to another email located on the same site. Hmmm. I’m sure that makes all the difference.