Whoisjohngalt

I agree. To add to what has already been said, the "secularism" of the socialist variety is so weak that these socialists have reinvented themselves as a new brand of religious philosophers/politicians/political theorists. So, in other words, the secularism/atheism of people like Marx who said "Religion is the opium of the masses" (where religion is criticized on a "social" basis, not on a religion qua religion basis) is based on flimsy grounds.

Can we by any means predict the future condition(s) of a society or country 1. provided we have some data like, say, the dominant philosophy or culture of that place, or 2. by any other means?

Ok. But what consequences do you think your supposedly rational beliefs on racism will have? After all, all morals and philosophy have their final result in politics and, on a longer scale, history. IMHO, arguments over racism can be settled over what intentions one has when rationally assessing people based on race and what consequences such assessments will have. For example, would you agree to racial segregation or racial quotas? Also, I would recommend you to read the essay "Racism" in Virtue of Selfishness to see Rand's position on racism.

But things like flying in the air and breathing under water have been achieved. Would you say they are "superficial"? That is true. So would youstill stick to the "blacks are dumb by birth" theory even then (after a generation)? (Correct me if I have misunderstood your theory). I agree with all of your reasons. But there is a name for the conclusion you have drawn from those reasons: prejudice.

sNerd and y feldblum, as I understand it, "AS" and "Capitalism" provide Moral/Philosophical arguments agaisnt statism. However, I am interested whether she ever went into the economics aspect of statism. PS. Sorry for digressing from this thread.

This is a subtle form of determinism. Would you say that humans can never overcome atleast some factors not under their voluntary conrol?

Was Ayn Rand was not exactly unequivocal in condemning state-interference in economics? I would be interested in knowing where she actually gives reasons for her stand against statism in particular?

"Who Is John Galt? - The Appetizer!" "Little. Yellow. Different. Who Is John Galt?"

Could not resist this one! Conservapedia is another example of religious conservatives trying to deny reality by labelling it "Liberal". Fortunately they accept Ayn Rand as real.

No. That would not be an "explanation" of the unexplainable aspect, but a confounding and evasion of the real issue. That is very easy to say: God is the "prime" mover, but who moved God? I doubt if you have actually read Rand, if you think you can bring in God using her ideas.

Also see John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged for a very nice treatment of this subject.

Basically, the parents have wrong views. But this issue must be not settled by courts/state intervention. That brings me to a question: how to deal with this kind of thing outside of state intervention?

Just a random statement: I suppose he supposes that the "developed nations" have just sprung up out of the earth by themselves or fallen out of trees. And, I wonder how he justifies his copyright over this article? Also, his thinking that the Orwellian world is real is questionable. Because in a communist, totalitarian society, there is almost zero industrial progress and Orwell's story can never exist in a real totalitarian world. Basically, Orwell was one of those guys who said to communists: "I agree with your ideals, but not your practice". Ayn Rand however showed why those ideals were wrong.

I am not sure if this is relevant or this has been referenced already, but a related article that I found to be interesting: Race and IQ

Very nicely put.

The one who asks the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is presupposing that "nothing" (which is simply the negation of "something") can "exist". However, the questioner himself exists. He cannot deny his own existence and his own consciousness (because of which he is asking this question). So I think that the question itself is flawed. Thats true as I have known such people.

On pondering over this, I am now wondering whether to: * not think of such people and ignore their existence OR * to try to rationally debate them. Of course, with professed irrationalists, the latter course would be a futile one. Any thoughts? I have tried to logically debate with a Marxist/Racist uncle of mine and all I got from it was a head-ache and no mutual understanding at all.

Have you met anyone who is like the Fountainhead character? I could boast of having met people who are as intellectually dangerous or have similar ideas as those of Toohey's. In fact whenever I meet some of these people, I am immediately reminded of Ayn Rand's masterful execution of this character and the similarities Toohey has with some real-world characters. Another question: Who in today's public world of intellectuals would you classify as closest to Toohey in their thinking. Of course, Chomsky comes to my mind... Reality is starnger than fiction.

If youare looking for earlier defenders of Laissez-faire, Herbert Spencer is a good place to start looking. He was the greatest defender of capitalism of the 19th century. What I am amazed at is that in spite of a giant like Spencer, Great Britain took the well-known road to socialism and misery.

Yes... please do let us know. I meant to say that some people think that way. See: this for example. However, I thoroughly enjoyed that film.

I meant that since sovereignty means having a monopoly on force, only the government has this, but businessmen or capitalists do not have this. They only have private property but not the "right" to initiate force. So, like the private property owners who cannot violate others' rights on their property just because the others are on their property, the businesspeople ideally have no sovereignty or political power. I am sorry if this sounds a little woolly. Its just something that came to my mind while I was reading your post. I understand that Ayn Rand had some issues with such usage of the term "minimum" government. But, I thought that she was describing a government which only protects the individual rights and does not interfere in people's lives otherwise in "The Nature of Government" in VoS. How do/should Objectivists describe their type of government?

There have a lot of good movies about Nazi Germany: Schindler's List, The Pianist, Life is Beautiful (although this last may be trivializing the holocaust). Ayn Rand was the first to write a novel on the real Soviet Union. Similarly, are there any good movies on the Soviet Union which expose the reality of living conditions of the ordinary people there?

I don't know the source, but this a popular quote of Jefferson's:

I have one thing to add: Roark does regret helping out Keating and realizes late in the novel that he had unconsciously fostered a parasite in Keating. Of course, one cannot blame Roark as Keating is the one who had always come to Roark for help.

See also: Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson.