Craig24

Why is not being compelling a flaw?

Is it a flaw because Objectivism is factually incorrect 20% of the time -- or -- is it a flaw because these semi-altruists/looters/moochers will disagree with it 20% of the time?

Do you think there's a flaw? What is it? What should we do about it?

Did Castile keep his hands on the wheel and ask the cop to reach for his license or ask the cop what to do next after informing him of the gun? That's what I suggested he should have done to be 100% safe.

If you say you have a gun and keep reaching for your license, the cop has a reason to suspect you are reaching for your gun. If it was me, I would keep my hands on the steering wheel and tell the cop to reach in my pocket for the license. Everyone is 100% safer that way.

A National Review article on the Philando Castile Case. David French disagrees with the verdict.

Is that what he's asserting? I'm actually somewhat confused. If you want, I can quote your post to him at his blog and ask him to clarify his point. Or you can go to his blog and ask him yourself. Either way replying to him here doesn't do any good since he doesn't participate in discussions at this forum.

About 5 years ago, Steven Farron wrote an essay in Liberty titled Defending Capitalism against Ayn Rand. Contemplate this for a moment. He thinks Ayn Rand, in some sense, was anti-capitalist even though she explicitly promoted and defended capitalism. In the essay he writes: “She thought that the heroes she created were exemplars of pure, uncorrupted capitalism. In fact, the heroes she created in Atlas Shrugged came from her sense of life, which was not only un-capitalist but anti-capitalist.” That’s a head scratcher. He continues: “In Atlas Shrugged, Rand created heroes who embodied her sense of life and described how such heroes would fulfill their heroic natures if they engaged in economic activities. She thought that the sum of their economic activities and interactions provides a template of what laissez-faire capitalism would look like. She was wrong. When the heroes who embody her sense of life engage in economic activities, they function like Communist administrators, not capitalist businessmen.” Her heroes function like Communist administrators in what way? Farron continues: “To paraphrase Rand, “Grandeur is the one word that names” the sense of life of Communist economies. They had no concern with anything “penny ante.” … The heroes of Atlas Shrugged are heroic because, like Communist bureaucrats, they produce or maintain impressive products, not mean little ones. It would be unimaginable for a Rand hero to be a manufacturer of “penny ante” products, such as disposable baby diapers, menstrual tampons, or dependable contraceptives. But these distinctively 20th-century inventions improved the quality of life immeasurably by freeing people from preoccupation with brute, animal existence.” Farron is saying that what makes you anti-capitalist is a grandiose preoccupation with the heroic struggle to create impressive products, not mean little ones. When Galt invents his motor he is being anti-capitalist because his motor is so much more impressive than a tampon. Wrap your head around that one. Capitalism is the system of individual rights. The essence of capitalism is the banning of coercion in human relationships. Under capitalism you deal with others by persuasion and trade, not force and fraud. Now what part of inventing an impressive motor instead of a tampon consists of promoting or using force? Galt, Hank Rearden, Francisco D’anconia, Ellis Wyatt and Dagny Taggart do not promote or use force by being grandiose or impressively productive and Farron has to know that. So what the **** is he really trying to do in this essay?

It contains "mystic muck"? That's all she said? Well that's interesting. Do you know about Indian mysticism?

How do you know that Ayn Rand did not undertand Indian mysticism?

Why would I do that? You are the one asserting that Objectivists don't understand the views of mystics/subjectivists. You need to prove it.

Do you understand what the mystics and subjectivists are saying? Can you summarize some of their views and show us how Objectivists don't understand those views?

You are very welcome.

Objectivist Ed Powell has written a paper against the open borders immigration position of other Objectivists (Binswanger, Tracinski, Biddle, Bernstein, Duke). This raises the question: Does a foreigner have a right to cross an international border? Powell says no. Powell says the burden of proof that any applicant for entry is not a threat to the freedom or security of the country lies with the applicant. The paper is well written, the position well argued. For reference: Binswanger's essay and Biddle's essay

Dustin86, I provided a simple illustration of something being objectively true even though there is disagreement with that truth: The earth is round and there is a flat earth society. Was that not enough to prove that objective reality does not not depend on agreement?

So what? People disagree, big deal. It's objectively true that the earth is round but there is a flat earth society. What are we supposed to do? Pretend it's not objectively true because of those nut jobs?

Reminds me of this scene from Star Trek TNG

Peikoff/Binswanger 2016... let's make it happen.

Blame philosophy. We are told from birth the government is your provider. That's a crude philosophic political view taught to and accepted by most. Dr Hurd needs to clarify a few things and it would be fair to ask him if the poor, for example, should be blamed for their poverty and a government that helps to cause it. He better answer a resounding "NO!" and explain himself. It would also help if he understood and communicated the fact the Donald Trump is no capitalist of any kind and that he's the wrong vehicle through which to change the crooked system. On the other hand, even if we want to sympathize with the poor and blame the system more than them for their situation, our anti welfare statist position makes us a big target for the welfare state advocates who resort to smears (racist, greedy, cruel..). If we were to write an essay on why politicians are crooks what should we say that's different from the essay in the OP?

Being poor is a choice for who? Why is choosing to be poor irrational? How does choosing to be poor prevent a person from being rational enough to be educated?

Why is that the only way to educate them? I've never heard of this before.

Ask the people providing the education. What am I? A know it all?

You are going in circles. What if someone decides to educate these poor people?

So what? What does that have to do with anything?

If you explain why some poor people should not be allowed to get an education you will give me something to think about.