[Peikoff on working with libertarians]

I disagree. I think you assume too much. I fail to see how stating that altruism does not work in theory or practice is altruistic. The end the article they promote free trade as the standard for men to deal with one another not altruism.

No, they dont, and stop your obvious lying, please. They say:

If Americans truly want to help other countries, they can best do so not through failed foreign aid programs, but by improving the U.S. economy, so that U.S. businesses have funds to invest abroad, and pursuing free trade policies. As the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted, "Critics rightly argue that the broad policies of the major Western countries -- trade policies, budget deficits, growth rates, and the like -- generally exert greater [positive] influence on the economies of developing countries than does aid."

They dont say that pursuing free trade policies is what helps you, but that "if you truly want to help other countries", pursuing free trade policies is good. They dont talk about a standard for men to deal with one another, they explicitly state that this is what a man should do, if he wants to help other countries. If your purpose is "helping other countries", then it is altruistic. Other countries do get richer by free trade, and it does help you, but they dont talk about that. They talk about helping other countries as such.

No. Free trade is better because its better for the individual and foreigners. Capitalism is the best and most efficient means for not only for individual but also the masses because of the wealth it creates. Just because something is good for a population does not mean that altruism in nature. Individual ambition rights and ambition lead to a common good.

True, but the LP does not adress the fact that free trade is better for you. The fact that it is good for others as well is a corollary of the principle of individual rights, but they state it as the primary concern. Nowhere, and you can read the article as many times as you want, do they adress that free trade is beneficial to you.

"What happened to the lessons we supposedly learned from the worldwide collapse of socialism? If we see the evils of a government-managed economy, why can't we see the same evils of a government-run global management agency that offers additional subsidies and controls? It's time that capitalism--true, laissez-faire capitalism--be allowed to function. That is, no subsidies, bailouts, or controls, not for the smallest wage-earners or the biggest banks."

They both claim the same thing: Handouts makes the problem worse and should stop. The solution is capitalism.

They dont both claim the same thing, at least not in the paragraph you quoted. There is no mention in that paragraph that the "evil" is that it doesnt help the poor. Yes, handouts makes the problem worse and should stop, but even though they are talking about the same conclusion, they are not talking about the same "problem".

[Peikoff on working with libertarians]

I fail to see your point. What part of the it was wrong? How is an article against foreign aid altruistic? At what point in the article does it say helping others is "good" ? The point of the article was stated in the first sentence:

"Foreign aid is little more than welfare for nations -- with the same disastrous effects as domestic welfare programs."

What part of it is altruistic? Where in this article did you get the impression that our moral duty is self sacrifice? The article actually states the opposite. It states that the altruistic stance of US foreign policy is self defeating because the only way to wealth is to produce it.

That is bs, so let's go through every paragraph of the article, with higlights added by me:

Foreign aid is little more than welfare for nations -- with the same disastrous effects as domestic welfare programs.

And in their "Welfare" section, they base their whole argument on why it doesnt actually help the poor, and how charity is so much better, and how people who give to charity should get tax breaks. By "disastrous effects", they dont mean theft from individuals, but to the non-help of the poor.

The U.S. currently spends approximately $14 billion per year on foreign aid -- far less than most people believe, but still a substantial sum. Since the end of World War II, the United States has spent more than $400 billion on aid to other countries. But there is little evidence that any of these programs has significantly improved the lives of the people in countries receiving this aid. Instead, foreign aid has typically slowed economic development and created dependence.

It does not say: The idea of foreign aid is based on the notion that it is our duty to help people in poor countries. We Libertarians oppose to that view, as foreign aid through taxation is theft, like any other form of taxation, and it completely violates a mans right to his own life. It can also be noted, that in addition to foreign aid being theft, it does not even help the people it is "intended" to help.

Notice the word "but". It clearly shows that their opposition to foreign aid is not because it is theft, but because it does not actually help the people in the poor countries. If they had switched that "but", to an "also", after first explaining what is actually wrong with foreign aid, then i'd have no problem with it.

Indeed, the U.S. Agency for International Development itself admits, "Only a handful of countries that started receiving U.S. assistance in the 1950s and 1960s has ever graduated from dependent status." In fact, despite massive amounts of international aid, the average annual increase in per capita GNP has declined steadily in developing nations since the 1960s, with many of the Third World's heaviest aid recipients actually suffering negative economic growth.

Once again, only talking about the effect it has on the poor countries....

Tanzania provides a perfect example. Since the early 1970s, Tanzania has received more international aid per capita than any other country. Yet, the country remains the world's third-poorest nation and has had no per capita GNP growth between 1980 and 1992. During the same period, inflation averaged 25% and energy and agricultural production declined dramatically.

....and again.....

A recent study by Peter Boone of the London School of Economics and the Center for Economic Performance confirmed that U.S. economic aid does not promote economic development. Studying more than 100 countries, Boone concluded that "Long-term aid is not a means to create [economic] growth."

Implying that "economic growth" in poor countries is something that the US government should be conserned about.

There are many reasons for the failure of foreign aid.

Here are the "many reasons" they name:

First, foreign aid has a widespread record of waste, fraud, and abuse. U.S. aid programs have built tennis courts in Rwanda, sent sewing machines to areas without electricity, and constructed hospitals in cities where a dozen similar facilities already sat half empty.

Frequently, the aid is stolen by corrupt foreign leaders. The Agency for International Development admitted in 1993 that "much of the investment financed by AID between 1960 and 1980 has disappeared without a trace."

In other words, it is wasteful because it built tennis courts in poor countries, sewing machines where they were inoperable, and hospitals where they weren't needed, implying that if they just had built nice schools in poor areas, power plants before bringing the sewing machines and hospitals in areas with none, they would have nothing against it.

It is fraudlent and abusive, because the aid is stolen by corrupt foreign leaders, once again implying, that if the leaders were benevolent honest "men of the people", then they would have nothing against it.

Even when aid reaches its intended beneficiaries, the results are often counterproductive. Just as domestic welfare prevents Americans from becoming self-sufficient, foreign aid keeps entire nations dependent. According to one internal AID audit, "Long-term feeding programs . . . have great potential for creating disincentives for food production."

Once again, implying that if only the long term feeding programs didnt cause disincentives for food production, there would be nothing wrong with using tax money, and if just the poor became self sufficient in America after getting welfare, theres nothing wrong with using tax money.

Specific examples of counterproductive aid policies are easy to come by. For example, following a devastating earthquake in Guatemala, farmers trying to sell their surplus grain found the market flooded by the U.S. Food for Peace program. As a result, according to the Institute for Food and Development Policy, "food aid stood in the way of development." According to journalist Michael Maren, a long-time volunteer with such groups as the Peace Corps, Catholic Relief Services, and AID, aid to Somalia aggravated the country's famine, disrupted local agriculture, and turned nomadic tribesmen into "relief junkies." Similar results have been documented in countries as diverse as Colombia, Haiti, and India.

Moreover, foreign aid has often been used to prop up failing Socialist economies, preventing countries from moving to free-market economic policies. Yet, an examination of world economies clearly shows that those countries with free markets experience the greatest economic prosperity.

As a result, Alex de Waal, president of the human rights group, Africa Rights, concludes that foreign aid is "structurally bad because it undermines the incentive to take responsibility. The more aid a country receives, the less the government of that country has to answer to the people."

....more of the same.

If Americans truly want to help other countries, they can best do so not through failed foreign aid programs, but by improving the U.S. economy, so that U.S. businesses have funds to invest abroad, and pursuing free trade policies. As the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted, "Critics rightly argue that the broad policies of the major Western countries -- trade policies, budget deficits, growth rates, and the like -- generally exert greater [positive] influence on the economies of developing countries than does aid."

This is the last paragraph. As you can see, nowhere in the article do they adress the fundamental problem, just insignifigant details. This just leaves these people philosophically disarmed, because in the cases where little Ndukwe from Kenya, whose elementary school was built by american tax money, becomes a succesful doctor and wins the Nobel Prize. What can the libertarians say then? Just like in the case of Thomas Sowell, who i otherwise respect a whole lot, was totally disarmed in his opposition to affirmative action, when Charlie Rose told him that Judge Clarence Thomas got into Yale due to affirmative action in an interview. If you base your opposition on something other than the actual principles, your opposition is worthless, when your detractors finds counter examples. They will never find a single counter example to a real principle, because it is impossible.

This is actually one of the major problem with libertarians. They spend their time trying to convince everyone that everyone will be better off in a libertarian world, with no regard on philosophy. A poor is poor today because of welfare, they say, a drug addict is miserable because he's persecuted by the government, Africans are poor because of foreign aid etc. The libertarians have a knack of creating principles out of insignifigant corollaries of actual principles....

So, how do you get the impresison that the article "states that the altruistic stance of US foreign policy is self defeating because the only way to wealth is to produce it.". Nowhere in the article do they even border on the subject of the payer, or the looted, so its absurd for you to claim that it opposes altruism. And about the fact that they dont say that it is your moral duty to help others: Well guess what, neither do the democrats. Your not going to find a single democrat who says that it is your moral duty to help others. But it is implicit in what they say, just like in this case. They spend the whole article on one argument, the fact that the aid doesnt actually work. Not one word, about he one who is being taxed, not one.

I mean, this reminds me of the debate about Obama's anti-americanism, where a couple of posters claimed that Obama opposes wealth distribution even when the evidence is right in front of them.....

------------------------------------

They do not state an LP foreign policy however, that was not the point of the article. It was to show how foreign aid is a waste, its not a foreign policy manifesto.

On their site, under the title "Issues", that is the only article that comes up when you click "Foreign Policy". It's clearly not just some random article on page 596, against why foreign aid doesnt help the poor, its the article they want people to see when quickly browsing through the LP positions.

[Peikoff on working with libertarians]

I think backing the Libertarian Party would get the Objectivist message out there better than backing the other parties, as a growing free market/individual right message would expose more people to Ayn Rand.

I just had a quick browse around the LP website, and on every issue they take the same kind of perverse stance that statism is bad because the statists measures are counter-productive. That welfare is bad because it doesnt actually help the poor, that foreign aid is bad because it doesnt actually help the africans, that enviromental restrictions are bad because the government itself pollutes etc. etc. It is clear from reading their stance on issues, that if they have any underlying morality, it is altruism, just with different kinds of policies as other altruists.

I mean, see for yourself:

http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy

But there is little evidence that any of these programs has significantly improved the lives of the people in countries receiving this aid. Instead, foreign aid has typically slowed economic development and created dependence.

There are many reasons for the failure of foreign aid. First, foreign aid has a widespread record of waste, fraud, and abuse. U.S. aid programs have built tennis courts in Rwanda, sent sewing machines to areas without electricity, and constructed hospitals in cities where a dozen similar facilities already sat half empty.

Frequently, the aid is stolen by corrupt foreign leaders. The Agency for International Development admitted in 1993 that "much of the investment financed by AID between 1960 and 1980 has disappeared without a trace."

Even when aid reaches its intended beneficiaries, the results are often counterproductive. Just as domestic welfare prevents Americans from becoming self-sufficient, foreign aid keeps entire nations dependent. According to one internal AID audit, "Long-term feeding programs . . . have great potential for creating disincentives for food production."

If Americans truly want to help other countries, they can best do so not through failed foreign aid programs, but by improving the U.S. economy, so that U.S. businesses have funds to invest abroad, and pursuing free trade policies. As the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted, "Critics rightly argue that the broad policies of the major Western countries -- trade policies, budget deficits, growth rates, and the like -- generally exert greater [positive] influence on the economies of developing countries than does aid."

Nowhere in this article, that the Party has chosen as the one to introduce their stance on Foreign Policy??, do they even remotely touch the actual reason why foreign aid is wrong: Theft. They harp on about foreign aid not helping the poor in foreign countries, never questioning whether that is even a valid topic, and they just focus on the inefficiencies of the program.

On the topic of Poverty and Welfare: http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare

Nowhere in the article do they talk about the immorality of stealing other peoples production, and they just go on about how the welfare programs dont actually help the poor. But the absolute worst part is this:

2. Establish a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charity

If the federal government's attempt at charity has been a dismal failure, private efforts have been much more successful. America is the most generous nation on earth. We already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. However, as we phase out inefficient government welfare, private charities must be able to step up and fill the void.

To help facilitate this transfer of responsibility from government welfare to private charity, the federal government should offer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charities that provide social-welfare services. That is to say, if an individual gives a dollar to charity, he should be able to reduce his tax liability by a dollar.

After this, no one can say that the LP isnt by definition altruists. Their opposition to current welfare programs is clearly

just about their perceived wrongs of the poor actually getting the help, but they cling on to the fact that helping the poor should be encouraged. I mean, what they are proposing there, is a "selfishness tax", which you can avoid by donating your money away.

What about taxes then: http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes

The LP talks only about "cutting" taxes, and never about repealing forced taxation altogether. Even if you may say that the difference is small, philosophically it is huge. It is like a person in the early 19th century, not supporting ending slavery, and instead supporting a "Be nicer to your slave"-act. The difference between just a little theft and no theft is 100000000x bigger than the difference between just a little theft, and a lot of theft.

The argument that government programs dont actually help the poor should be made, if at all, as a footnote on page 96 of your political program, not as the main argument!

I really dont see why i should be interested in promoting the Libertarian Party because they share the same conclusions as me on many things. Im not supporting the KKK because they share the opposition of affirmative action with me either. The discussion can be had whether libertarianism as such is altruistic, but it is evident to everyone that the Libertarian Party is.

[Voting help....]

The European Parliament elections are coming up, and im struggling who to vote , and more importantly, whether to vote or not in the first place. Ideally, I would like to vote for a person staunchly opposed to the EU itself, wanting to get Finland out of the EU, but there are two problems. First of all, the European Parliament isnt the place where this thing is decided, and secondly, all of the candidates opposed to the EU and wanting Finland to get out of it, are nationalists, or some kind of fringe socialist nuts. I just filled a questionnaire online that all the candidates have also filled, and the top 8 matches were all some kind of nationalists or even borderline national socialists. None of the "established" parties oppose the EU, and there are no, and i mean no, conservative opposition to the EU here, and the so called "capitalists" in this country are the most vocal supporters of the EU and the future federalisation of Europe, so a vote for them is like a vote for Stalin.

So, if i vote for a nationalist/nazi, who does not have any say in domestic finnish politics, but who wants to get Finland out of the EU as i do, is that good or bad? Or should i just refrain from voting altogether?

[Ayn Rand and the military]

altruism

1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

.

.

.

.

To expand on this concept, we might look at service careers in other professions. By definition, many jobs are altruistic by definition. Careers like nursing comes to mind, devoting care to a patient. Sure, the nurse gets a paycheck, but from my experience nursing is a very tough career if you're just doing it to pay the rent. It takes a special person to really connect on the type of a level that certain nurses need to do as part of their job description. I'd say any profession where there is intimate interaction on a personal level with other individuals is the same way. There are a lot of jobs which are tough, if not impossible, without having some kind of connection with coworkers, customers, employees & supervisors to varying degrees. I know there are lots of jobs that are not this way, banker, for example. Fiction writer? The point is that there are different types of jobs for different types of people. Some jobs are altruistic in nature, which extends beyond the pay check. Some jobs require little or no meaningful devoted interest or interaction with other people.

In yet another thread, you mistake altruism for "not being a hermit" or "having a connection with people". Also, every selfish job extends beyond the paycheck. It is in no means selfish for a person interested in graphic design to become a stock broker, and if he chooses the career of a graphic designer, never sacrificing his values, and he makes just 30K/year, he still is selfish, which he would not be if he went against his values, and made a fortune as a stock broker, hating every second of it. A billionaire can be an altruist/unselfish, a "struggling artist" can be selfish. You really dont understand Rands point, even a bit.

But the weirdest thing about your comments is that being a fiction writer is altruistic. It's probably one of the only professions where it is almost impossible to be an altruist. Writing fiction is a declaration of ones own values, a kind of flaunting of ones own ideas, and i dont see how you can think fiction writers are altruist by nature. You seem to make the point that the fact that other people buys the books, that that would make it selfish.

Selfishness is not "lets just hoard as much stuff to yourself as fast as possible without ever socializing with others" and altruism is not "having a connection with people and pursuing a career where you have to socialize with others"

Even though the definition of altruism you quoted doesnt perfectly identify all the finer points of the concept altruism, your writings still dont apply to that definition.

[Was Ayn Rand an altruist?]

Maybe you guys can help me try to figure out this seeming paradox about Objectivism.

The paradox lies in the fact that you equate "caring for others" with altruism.

Was she a prima dona only trying to pacify her own selfish ego? I like to think that she genuinely thought there was some truth to what she was talking about, not just a slick sales pitch to gratify herself. But that would make her an altruist.

You are offering a false alternative, where either you are a primadonna trying to "pacify" your ego by slick dishonest sales pitches, or then you are an altruist. Thats not the case, and you would know that had you read a word Ayn Rand wrote, which i dont believe for a second you have, as your post is so ridiculous.

My point is that I don't think it's the end of the world to care about people, even to the point of altruism.

Caring about people and altruism are opposites, not corollaries. Altruism teaches to help others when there is no value to you. Helping a person you care about has value to you, and is a selfish act.

I think this can be what family is all about, especially when one chooses a mate and eventually has children. In family, one must have devotion to the welfare of the ones one cares about.

Once again, what you are describing is not altruism. Caring about people has nothing to do with altruism.

Ayn Rand seems to ignore things like love & caring for people except in some strange context of selfishness & greed which doesn't make any sense to me.

This is one of the most absurd statements ive read regarding Rand. Rand most certainly does not ignore love.

Also, Ayn Rand does not talk about love or caring for other peoples welfare on the basis of greed.

Your making it seems like it is somehow beneficial for a person to abandon his children and family and live a life of social seclusion, and that one should refrain from doing this by sacrificing your own self interest.

Rand did not oppose altruism because she thought that love is irrelevant or that caring for people is stupid. She opposed altruism because it tells you to put other peoples values in front of your own values, sacrificing your values for the values of someone else. When i buy a birthday present or loan money to my friend i do it because I care for him and share values with him, not because i put his values in front of my own.

But please, read some Rand before critizing Rand, and in your case even a short browsing of wikipedia would be a plus, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

[David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism]

Also James, could you stop being so facetious. You said:

If Peikoff/Schwartz had their way, they would never allow their disciples to read anything that wasn't written by someone from the ARI camp. Newton? He's a deist. Oh and he didn't smoke. He's evil. George Orwell? He's wasn't a radical for capitalism..he's evil. He thought Stalin was more evil than Kant. Burn his books. They never existed, actually (see Branden). Do you see what I'm getting at here? I'm being facetious, but there's truth in the bizarre judgments that Peikoff/his ilk makes.

then Plasmatic answers to that exact statement directly by:

Also I heard Peikoff on a lecture yesterday state that he thinks its OK to read opposing philosophies but with the critical active position "whats wrong with this".

And you answer with:

Oh good, thanks Peikoff! I'm now allowed to read books again. Oh boy.

Give me a break.

Its like me saying: If Ayn Rand had her way, philosophy would not exist. She and here cultists thought that philosophy is irrelevant, and that it has no value, and she said that everyone should burn libraries that have books about philosphy.

Then someone answers: Thats wrong. Rand clearly did not think philosophy was irrelevant, she thought the exact opposite. She wrote a book called:"Philosophy, Who Needs It?" and clearly stated that everyone needs philosophy. Your statement about burning libraries absurd, she said no such thing.

And you answer: Oh good, thanks Rand! Im now allowed to read philosophy again. Oh boy. Give me a break.

What is it that you are trying to accomplish with these ridiculous statements, and not acknowledging when your statements are being shown to be false. Could you please try to just concentrate on the topic at hand, and not go on your sarcasm-ridden tirades without any evidence about "pope Peikoff" and how he thinks everyone should be hermits and noone should talk without first asking him permission.

[David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism]

In what way(s) do think Kelley contradicts objectivism, beyond the fact/value split?

In the exact way you just said.

I said 'might' because I'm debating whether he's really contra-objectivism in the first place.

It has been shown here multiple times already how the separation of ideas from actions is contra-objectivism.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. So let's say some libertarians move in next door, who by your lights, are evil. By my lights, they're slightly evil. Would you, JJJJ, refuse to be friends with them, so as to not sanction their evasion? Or would you be friends with them since you would have some common ground?

You really have gotten this whole debate wrong. Noone says that you cant be friends with libertarians, christians, collectivists etc., not even anyone at ARI and especially not Peikoff, which would be abundantly clear if actually read and listened to what the man actually says. There are probably loads of people on this board who are married with non-objectivists, and probably at ARI too, so its not about befriending or socializing with libertarians thats the issue. Peikoff isnt promoting becoming a hermit, which you seem to suggest.

However, as you brought up the friendship thing: If you are friends with a democrat, and you both share a love of baseball or science fiction, it's totally in your interests to go to ball games and sci-fi conventions with him/her. Your not sanctioning anything at this point. However, and this is a huge however, your friend tells you that "man, rich people should be taxed more, they are ripping off the working man" or "man, i can't believe what a selfish bastard that guy was who stole my wallet at the Mets game", and you do not clearly state that you do not agree, and instead leave the impression that you agree with him, then you are sacrificing your values. You dont have to argue with him if he's not interested in your opinions, but if your friendship starts revolving around your differences in philosophy, there probably isnt much value in the friendship. If you simply keep your friendship about the Mets or Star Trek, then go for it.

Its not you duty to convert as many people as possible to Objectivism, and seclude yourself from society when people dont agree with you 100%. If you find "common ground" with a person in sports, movies, beer, sense of life, trainspotting, architecture etc. that has a different philosophy than you, then great, you have found a new friend. What Kelley is proposing is not this, but instead to find "common ground" IN philosophy with people who disagree with Objectivism.

Maybe I should stop assuming people can read between the lines. Everything I've read from ARI about Kelley discusses how evil he is and why he should be excommunicated. How do you justify ARI not sancting Kelley's work, but sanctioning Brandens? Do you think Branden was good once and then turned evil?

Brandens pre-split work is valuable, because he was an objectivist->then openly and clearly changed his views. Kelley on the other hand doesnt seem like he changed his mind at any point, he seems to have always been a non-objectivist. And please tell us, which of Kelley's pre-Truth and Toleration work is valuable to Objectivism?

But I do plan on listening to all of his podcasts, I've listened to a few so far. Like I said, I have a loads of respect for Peikoff and for all the good he's done for objectivism. But I think he can better. I think Kelley can do better.

How much of Kelley's work have you read, beacuse it should be pretty clear when reading his op-eds and articles that he has nothing to add to objectivism, no matter what you think of Peikoff.

[David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism]

Peikoff, in fact and value, mentions "groping teenagers" searching for truth.

No, he mentions "groping teenagers" as people who can be considered honest, in contrast to an academic marxist. It has nothing to do with talking. It's not that ARI is against debates are philosophical discussions. They take part in them themselves. Also, even if the schism started with the Kelley talking to libertarians thing, it is vastly overplayed here. It was his response, "A Question of Sanction", where he explicitly gave views that are totally non-compatible with Objectivism. It was not the talking with libertarians that broke the camels back, it was his views on moral evaluation of ideas that did it.

Peikoff once mentioned in a podcast that he liked a movie because the protagonist reminded him of Rand. !?. Maybe he's in love with her. I'm mostly joking, but there is a cultish element in some circles that's hypocritically collective.

What kind of argument is this?

This is a point Kelly makes which I agree with. Objectivism, as it is, is not as well of a grounded philosophy as it could be and hopefully will be. There's work that needs to be done to make it a coherent, comprehensive philosophy. I'd totally agree that it's foundational principles/answers to the five basic branches of philosophy are perfect.

Examples please...Also, note once again that Kelley did not "add" to Objectivism, he went against it.

Where does he go against the major principles? Evidence please. I've already said that I agree that fact and valuable and inseparable..so Kelly might disagree with me on that.

You just answered your own question.....

The case that Kelly makes that I particularly agree with is the case for degrees. Peikoff/his ilk seem to have almost no regard to degrees when it comes to evil, which is dangerous. I wonder if Peikoff even talks to people who aren't objectivist. He wouldn't want to sanction anyone, after all.

How many times do we have to go over this. Peikoff does agree that there are degrees of evil. But those degrees are irrelevant in the question of "toleration". Just like everyone admits that a mass murderer is more evil than a guy who slaps his wife around every now and then. That doesnt mean that we tolerate spousal abuse because it is not as bad as mass murder. It doesnt mean that we refrain from judging spousal abuse, because mass murder is worse. The degree of evil in the case of mass murder and spousal abuse is irrelevant in the question of who to tolerate. Neither should be tolerated.

This is what you have to understand. It is not that there arent degrees of evil, it is that they dont matter in terms of toleration.

I do think that when Kelly talks to groups, he should make it clear upfront that he thinks they are evil/wrong. Perhaps he does, and we just don't hear about it because of who our reporters are.

What do you mean with "who our reporters are". Is TOC's website a bad source. Your making it seem like ARI sends weekly newsletters summarizing what Kelley writes, and then giving out orders what to think of them.....

Like I said, I do think Kelly should definitely make it clear that he's not sanctioning them. About the respect issue...I value the philosophical work he's done. I value the philosophical work Branden did. Ayn Rand did as well, if you recall. But now ARI tries to pretend like she never did.

What value is there in what Kelley has done?

And to your other point. Would you like it if ARI promoted Alan Greenspan. You dont think that would be confusing considering hes not an Objectivist?

If Peikoff/Schwartz had their way, they would never allow their disciples to read anything that wasn't written by someone from the ARI camp. Newton? He's a deist. Oh and he didn't smoke. He's evil. George Orwell? He's wasn't a radical for capitalism..he's evil. He thought Stalin was more evil than Kant. Burn his books. They never existed, actually (see Branden). Do you see what I'm getting at here? I'm being facetious, but there's truth in the bizarre judgments that Peikoff/his ilk makes.

One question as you admit to being quite new to Objectivism. Have you ever read/heard Peikoff or Schwartz say that one shouldnt read Newton, Orwell etc. Have you ever read anything by Peikoff where he says that you should only hang around ARI approved Objectivists and that you should not socialize with other people. Have you ever even read anything by Peikoff? I suggest you go to http://peikoff.com/podcasts.html and download every podcast of his, because you are giving a COMPLETE misrepresentation of his views and his character, as if he was some grumpy old man who just yells and commands everyone. Really, listen to those podcasts and come back after that.

[David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism]

I believe in the debate between Peikoff and Kelley the concrete was that Kant was more evil than Stalin because he made Stalin possible. I believe it is moral to shoot a Stalin or a Hitler on sight. If Kant is just as evil as or even more evil than Stalin, would you assassinate Kant? Would you assassinate an academic marxist? If you do not think you should assassinate an academic marxist, then it seems that you agree with Kelley because while it is true they are both evil, it is in different respects. It is because of that difference in respects that you can engage in discussion with a marxist and not with Stalin.

What does assasination have to do with anything. I'd shoot a schitzofrenic hallucinating crack junkie on site if he tried to kill me, that doesnt mean i think he is more evil than Barack Obama. Do you actually think that there is an Objectivist principle "the more evil someone is, the more he deserves to be assasinated"?.

No, i would most definitely not assasinate an academic marxist if he doesnt initiate force, or Kant for that matter if he lived today. You dont use force unless force is used against you, thats why the Kant's and the marxists should be battled with the mind.

Consider this quote by Ayn Rand:

This just means that Rand thought anarchists are more dangerous than marxists. She doesnt say that you should deal with marxists to reach an understanding per se, she says that an understanding would be easier to reach with marxists than anarchists.

Just like i think that there is a greater chance of reaching an understanding with a christian than a nihilist, doesnt mean that i should go to a "God is great"-rally to speak to reach an understanding with them, especially without openly stating that i think they are evil.

Notice that Kelley states primarily, this does not mean that ideas cannot be judged by ethical standards.

Well, he later says that ideas should be judged as "true and false", and actions as "good and evil". True and false is not a moral judgement.

Kelley is also pointing to the different respects in which a person can be evil. Obviously you do not use force against people just because they believe in socialism or communism.

What does using force have to do with anything in this thread? Who says that you should use force against a marxist professsor?

I think his point here is to consider degree and measurement. Obviously, going to a party dressed inappropriately is a bad idea but I seriously doubt it warrants the label EVIL.

Could you explain how going to a party inappropriately dressed has anything to do with this discussion.

The reason why the sanction issue even came up between Kelley and Peikoff is because Kelley spoke to Libertarians about why you need a rational philosophy to support capitalism.

No, it was because he spoke to libertarians without explaining why Objectivism is incompatible with libertarianism, and without explaining what libertarianism leads to. If he had gone to a "Philosophy Debate", explained in his statements clearly why libertarianism is evil, nothing would have happened. What he did was go to a libertarian event, to promote Objectivism as just one way of being a libertarian.

"This is an insidious kind of intimidation: it equates a speaker’s views with

those of the discussion’s sponsors. A man of integrity is conscientiously precise about the

nature of his views on any subject. If his views are going to be judged, not by his own

statements, but by the views of those who invite him to speak... then his only alternative is to

accept no speaking engagements. If so, what happens to our freedom of speech?” “The

Disenfranchisement of the Right,” The Ayn Rand Letter I (Dec.20, 1971), p. 26.

Highlights mine.

As you can see from Kelleys speech to that muslim group, he did not promote objectivism, he appeased the muslims to find "common ground", thus not having any integrity.

If the KKK and David Duke hosted an "Against Affirmative Action" symposium, and asked you to speak, would you go? And if you would go, would you present Objectivism as just one way of opposing Affirmative Action. You do not think that you would be viewed as a supporter of the event, if you spoke there?

But that begs the question, how do you judge, how do you know who deserves tolerance, how much time should a person have to adapt, how much time should a person be allowed to learn, how much time does a person deserve?

In the case of an academic marxist, none. If you are not a subjectivist, which i hope you are not, you have to understand that it is impossible for anyone with a working non-retard human mind to honestly agree with marxism, especially after studying it in addition to history, economics, philosophy etc. without serious and completely intentional evasion. I can bet everything i have, that you will not "convert" a single academic marxist to an Objectivist or even something close to that, even if you spend your whole life trying. A person with little life experience and little expertise may call themselves marxists, and if they seem honest you can explain Objectivism to them. But the "cut off" point is waay waay before an academic marxist.

That is not fair to Kelley's argument. I could argue the same way about Peikoff because I think far more harm and danger comes from the opposite of Kelley's approach, which is: judge fast, judge now, forget waiting for all the facts, forget if you are right or wrong, ask questions later, if at all. Forget proportions (not one crumb), there are few errors in philosophy - so you are most likely evil, and you don't understand Objectivism unless you agree with me.

So first you say that someone isnt fair to Kelleys argument, but then give a total misrepresentation of Peikoff's?

Peikoff has stated many times that there are many good people who arent Objectivists, and that to be good, you dont have to understand Objectivism per se. But it is absurd to not judge a f-ing academic marxist on the spot, and to somehow think there still is a chance he is honest and not evading?!! I mean, tell me how a person can become an academic marxist without evading? What kind of freak circumstances need to happen that his every experience of life is so out of the realm of normal, that marxism makes sense without him shrugging off his mind? For a person to become an academic marxist honestly, would require a Truman Show type manipulation of his surroundings for his whole life.

[David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism]

Provide proof of this claim please.

Just after a 2 minute browsing of "A Question of Sanction":

The concept of evil applies primarily to actions, and to the people who perform them. Schwartz asserts that we should not sanction the Soviets because they are “philosophical enemies.” This is a bizarre interpretation of their sins. Soviet tyrants are not evil because they believe in Marxian collectivism.They are evil because they have murdered millions of people and enslaved hundreds of millions more..

Truth and falsity, not good or evil, are the primary evaluative concepts that apply to ideas as such.

If we approach ideas with the question: true or false?, we stand ready to combat bad ideas by the only means appropriate to intellectual issues: open, rational discussion and debate. But if we approach ideas with the question: good or evil?, we will avoid debate for fear of sanctioning evil-doers.

[David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism]

Peikoff/Schwartz/other objectivists seem to have trouble the degrees of evil concept, and I think it's an important thing to keep in mind.

No, they have a problem with the fact that we should tolerate these "lesser" evils, and suspend judgement.

I disagree with the age distinction. I'm personally happy to talk to neighbors of all ages, if they ask about objectivism, whether they are 15 or 50.

You really seem to be making a strawman here. No one is saying you shouldnt talk to people of all ages no matter what their philosophy.

A lot of people are way to quick to judge without evidence or degree, in my opinion. The "ARI objectivists" comment was figurative/sarcastic to demonstrate this.

Yes, sometimes people do that, but i haven't seen ARI or Peikoff do this all that much.

The deification of Ayn Rand makes some people try to integrate her dated opinions into her philosophy. I've seen this even on this board. She was tremendous, brilliant, unique, but nobody is perfect. Similar with her written philosophy, or Peikoff's, or Kelly's. Let's be smart about this. Let's have our minds be the final arbiter of truth.

It really seems you have some psychological problem of accepting perfection. Yes, she was human, she did mistakes, she did say things that aren't true, but her philosophy is perfect. And if it's not, show me where it's not. I don't understand youre "nobodys perfect" comment, if you dont offer any examples. As a blanket statement it's pretty similar to "the truth lies somewhere in between".

That's one of my issues with Ayn Rand groups in general. A group or center with philosophy that values individualism becomes automatically susceptible to conformity.

Yes, there are people who are interested in Objectivism because they have a wrong kind of hero worship, and they just like absolutes in general. This board has some, but you will not find those people at ARI.

Then why do you consider Peikoff's work part of objectivist doctrine, but not other objectivist philosophers? If you take Ayn Rand's works alone, that's fine. But that means you can't call Peikoff's addition part of objectivism, and I bet you aren't willing to do that. Ayn Rand gave him her sanction, yes, but this is your definition.

First of all, Peikoff hasn't added anything to the philosophy, nor went against any of its core principles. Second of all, Ayn Rand herself accepted the Ominous Parallel's as Objectivist. But OPAR is just a clear introduction to what Objectivism is, and thus it is Objectivist. And as Peikoff has stated, if he ever gets that "DIM" book out, that it will not be part of Objectivist philosophy, just an application of it to explain history.

What Kelley does, is not only add to the philosophy, but go against one of its major principles, and that is very different from writing an introduction of Objectivism.

I'm willing to call Peikoff's work objectivist, and I'm willing to call Kelly's works objectivist.

Then the word Objectivist means nothing, if it means contradictory things. Because you cant even call Kelleys books "applications" of Objectivist philosophy, because it doesnt even apply it, it goes against its basic principles.

I'm willing to talk to (tolerate) lots of people, young and old, and tell them about objectivism. That doesn't mean I sanction them or their beliefs, it means I see them as potential values. People may be able to pick of up different pieces (conservativism, atheism, etc.), but as a systematic philosophy, very view people know about objectivism. Even people who've read and appreciated Atlas Shrugged might not be aware that there is a philosophical movement.

You really have not understood where the schism between ARI and the "open system" lies. It is not in talking to irrational people, and talking to them is not toleration. Talking to them without clearly stating that you think they are wrong/evil.

This is an example of Kelley, and i dont understand how you can respect him:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1540-T..._Terrorism.aspx

Some quotes from Kelleys speech to a muslim organization:

I am not a Muslim. Nor am I a Christian, or a Jew. My philosophy of life, Objectivism, is a secular philosophy. But we are gathered here to protest the evil of terrorism in the name of values that transcend differences in religion and worldview.

...to watch the brave people of Iraq being blown apart as they drive their children to school, as they wait in lines to enlist in the police force, as they try to build a democratic society...

The terrorists claim that violent jihad is the true path of Islam. I do not believe this for a minute.

Unfortunately, it is the Islamists who have so far had the loudest voice. That's why it's vitally important for Muslims themselves to speak out against the terrorists and reject their actions as evil—absolutely evil, no ifs, ands, or buts. Too many Islamic spokesmen have taken "Yes, but" attitudes: Yes, the violence is wrong but Palestinians are still oppressed… or Yes, but there is still discrimination against Arab-Americans… or Yes, whatever. Well, yes indeed, these issues deserve our attention. But they do not justify or excuse murder and destruction.

I salute Kamal Nawash for the absolute, unqualified stand he has taken, and for his courage and commitment in speaking out. I salute the Free Muslims Against Terrorism for sponsoring this rally. I urge everyone to support them and make common cause with them.

You understand that this is not just "talking" to religious people. This is utter sanction of islam and religion. Nowhere in his speech, does Kelley adress the evils of religion itself, the evils of mysticism.

And his last quote which i wanted to separate:

I appeal to all those, of any creed or philosophy, who stand for human life and happiness, for freedom, for progress and for its source—the free exercise of reason—to join in opposing those who want to control the mind, roll back progress, stifle freedom—and who are willing to kill and maim to do so.

This i unadulterated libertarianism. Its not just kind of libertarian, it is 100% what libertarianism is about. It doesnt matter why you support human life, happiness and freedom, and you can be of "any creed or philosophy", just as long as you support "freedom".

Really, have you been really aware of what kind of person Kelley is, and what he thinks is applicable with Objectivism, or do you really respect him after reading this....

[David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism]

Let me get clear on this. I am going to lie down on my bed, and deliberately sabotage my mind. I am going to force myself to become a Hindu. I am going to literally make myself believe that there are lots of gods with elephant heads and other strange appendages controlling reality. Then I am going to force myself to become an idealist on top of that, and to crown it all off I will make myself believe that a version of Marxism more Marxist than Marx is the correct political ideology - but I'm just going to stay in bed. I'm not going to act on any of my ideas. I have committed the grossest sequence of evasions possible. I am being more evasive of reality than Kant. Given that, am I more evil than Kant, Hitler, etc, by your criteria?

No, because you do not promote these ideas.

[David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism]

Some objectivists condemn libertarians or socialists with the same blanket of judgement as they would a dictator.

Thats a bit out of context. I dont think there is anyone here who judges their neighbor who introduces himself "Hi, my name is Todd. I just moved next door, and i'm a libertarian" as equally evil as a dictator. Noone here is objecting to the fact that there are degrees of evil, what we are objecting to the fact that Kelley thinks that only actions should be judged, not the ideas that led to those actions. If your libertarian neighbor turns out to be intelligent, but still a subjectivist an a pacifist who thinks the US should not defend themselves, he most definitely is evil, and not just a little.

I assume my democratic neighbor (or libertarian) is open to reason (innocent), until I have evidence otherwise (guilty).

Well, kind of, if he is somewhat young, disinterested in ideas and hasnt just thought of things all that much. If he is a 40-year old social worker with a college degree, then he most definitely is not innocent.

People who actively profligate their bad ideas are evil. A Marxist professor is evil--but let's talk with him first before we condemn him. Let's debate him.

This must be the most absurd statement ever. Obviously we can debate him if we want to convice the listeners, but that doesnt mean that we shouldnt condemn him. Actually, that is the first thing you should do, and make it damn sure that you are there not to "learn his point of view", but to show others that it is evil.

Kant was not out to destroy mankind. That's absurd. He was a philosopher. He was wrong, and many of his ideas were pure evil, but he was not giving orders to Hitler. People who use force to slaughter millions are more evil than those who think about it.

You have a cartoon/comic book version of evil, that doesnt exist in the world. Evil people are not the ones who sit in their lairs rubbing their hands actively thinking "i am so evil, all i want is destruction, i want to kill as much as possible". Sure, there are sociopaths, but in general that is just a caricatyre of something that doesnt exist. It is their intentional evasion of reality that makes them evil, not the fact that they "openly" admit to themselves that all they want is concentration camps and gulags.

Your theory of evil, would actually make Jim Jones less evil than the people who killed themselves and their babies at Jonestown.

There are degrees of evil. It's lazy to say that everyone who isn't an ARI objectivist is evil..and it's false.

Yes there are degrees of evil, and it would most definitely be lazy to say that everyone who doesnt support ARI is evil, but when there actually are no people who claim that, your statement is absurd. No one disagrees with the degrees of evil part, but with the indefinite suspension of judgement and only judging actions, not ideas.

Similarly, objectivism is an integrated truth, but that 1% makes it an open system. More work needs to be done before it can be considered a well grounded philosophy, but as an idealogy it is bullet proof.

We can have the gay debate somewhere else, but whatever stance you have, that statement about gays was an application(either wrong or false) by Ayn Rand of her philosophy, not a principle of her philosophy. The fact whether Ayn Rand had or did not have wrong information about the nature of homosexuality, does not make Objectivism an open system. Whether Rand was wrong about gays, women, evolution etc. does not change her philosophy, whether ideas should be separated from action morally, does.

It's like saying that we can make Aristotle's philosophy "open", and include the Theory of Forms into Aristotle's philosophy, because Aristotle thought the world was flat.

And somewhere you asked whether i was evil, before i was an objectivist, and the answer in my case is yes. I did some serious evasion back in the day, where i ran into problems with my thinking and just shrugged them off. Some others here may have done the same, some others may have not. But i have no problem in admitting that i was evil.

[Sophie's World Marxist View of Capitalism]

“If you now deduct the workers’ wages and the other production costs from the exchange-value, there will always be a certain sum left over. This sum was what Marx called profit.

This is the thing that every socialist, past or present, communist or liberal, gets wrong. They forget that there are two parties involved. If the worker didnt have the capitalist, there would be no production. If the capitalist didnt have the worker, there would be no production. If the capitalist makes a deal with the worker that the capitalist provides the equipment and infrastructure for the production, and the worker does the manual labour for a certain agreed upon compensation, then why should the capitalist get nothing from this?

Also, they dont understand that both the capitalist and the worker makes a "profit", even though the workers profit is called "wage". The worker exchanged his labour for the wage, and the "sum left over" in this case, is the profit the worker made. The "sum left over" for the capitalist, is the thing that Marx called profit. But both are essentially the same thing, even if one is called profit, and the other wage.

If we applied Marx in reality: The person who presses the recording button and the person who reads the novel, while making an audiobook, should get all the revenue from the sales of the audiobook, while the author who wrote the novel thats being read, and the publisher/distributor that provided the studio, the audio recorder + the marketing and sales of the audionovel should get nothing. Because recording studios, novels, audio recorders and marketing/sales strategies just exist naturally in nature independent of human action, and thus it is exploitative that the novelist and distributor get anything....

[David Kelley's Moral Theory Contra Objectivism]

I don't think anyone is saying that your average democratic neighbor is as evil as Stalin. That democratic neighbor could just be a "habitual" democrat, a very a-political person who just strolls through life, voting democrat out of habit, not too interested in principles and ideas. But if this democrat is actually interested in ideas, and principles, and actually understands them, and is openly promoting these falsehoods, then he is just as evil as the person who makes the logical leap of putting these ideas into action. Because "democrat" dont actually have a homogenous "ideology" its difficult to say who is and who isnt as evil as Stalin, but the marxist professor that Kelley gives as an example most definitely is.

And about Kant. An intelligent person whose lifes work is the destruction of the human mind, is responsible for the people who take his ideas into action, no matter whether Kant himself was nice to kittens and always greeted his neighbors.

Just like David Duke is as or even more evil as the racists lynching and killing non-white people, even though he himself may be a civilized person.

Also:

A real objectivist should be willing to reject anything that is irrational, even if it's something Peikoff or *gasp* Ayn Rand said. If 99% of what Ayn Rand/Peikoff said is true, which I think it is, let's honor her for her unprecedented achievement. It would discredit her work to agree indescriminately, or to hold anyone else's mind above your own.

Yes, that is true, if you show us the 1% where Ayn Rand and Peikoff are wrong. Usually this argument is just thrown out there because people expect by default that no single person could have been correct about everything. They never require proof, they just state it as if it were true by default that even the best ones are just 99% correct.

[Dr. Peikoff on Courage]

I think courage is shown especially in situations where you find yourself in a situation where you have to choose between two or more alternatives that all are "painful" to varying degrees, and you have the courage to "accept" reality and choose the right one. An example of this would be the hiker who cut his own arm off after he had a boulder fall on his arm and would have died otherwise. It took a lot of courage to actually face reality and understand that there is no way he can live with his arm.

It takes a lot of courage to do the right thing in situations where your circumstances change, and you have to make decisions based on the current circumstance and not think about the circumstance that does not exist anymore. The hiker example is a very extreme example, and other more "every-day" examples would be the courage to understand that you cant spend like before after you lose your well paid job/livelihood, or the courage to be objective when a person you love does something immoral.

[Stripping / Strippers]

You can create hypotheticals about dancers with self esteem and integrity who value their sexuality, and customers who arent watching them for arousal, but for artistic appreciation of her body, but this is just a rationalisation, an after the fact explanation to why one did something.

It's like explaining that dogfighting fans are watching dogs kill each other to appreciate the beaty and instinctual behavior of canines, while getting a bigger appreciation of evolutionary processes that have eventually led to human beings. The reason people watch dogfighting, is because they seek thrills from mindless killing and suffering, and that is how dogfighting should be viewed.

And to EC: the fact that she makes money has nothing to do with whether stripping is moral, and i remember other threads as well where you offer the fact that a person getting money from consentual services is relevant to whether the act is moral or not. Just like me running a dogfighting ring or writing astrology books may "make" me money, it has nothing to do with morality.

[A questions about helping others selfishly]

You could do what you want with you money but why "africans"? Why not Eskimoes or Indians or people from some tribe in the middle of the Pacific? What's so special about strangers from Africa versus anywhere else?

Theres nothing special. The main idea was offering scholarships to people who show moral character and willingness to improve their lives, but whose situation of no fault of their own is such that it is nearly impossible to do that.

I bolded the key parts, so that you dont reply to something i never said.

[Arguments]

I never argue these days with my friends. When someone says something idiotic, and expects an answer from me, i usually ask: "i disagree, so do you really want to talk about this topic, or were you just making a random observation" or something along those lines. Most people can utter political or moral statements just for the sake of idle conversation, and therefore its just better to move on to other subjects. A good example is if youre at a bar with your friends watching a football game, and he casually says: "athletes these days are overpaid, they are ripping off the fans", then a simple "i disagree" will suffice. If he stays on the subject, then you can ask whether he really wants to discuss the topic, but otherwise its pointless to ruin a night out with your friends watching football over a casual remark one of the makes. Obviously you shouldnt leave him the impression that you agree with him, however, but i've had enough experience of turning mindless casual comments from my friends into heated arguments, and there is absolutely no value in it if you otherwise like hanging out with your friends.

[Proper government is violating rights]

Im getting a bit confused, whether there are two meanings of the word "right".

In VoS, Rand writes:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life.

The first sentence makes no distinction between whether these rights are good or bad, it simply states that it defines and sanctions a man's freedom of action. This is how i define rights as well. The second sentence explains what that right should morally be.

Rand also says:

Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.

If she thought that all men "have" rights, she would have said "...the man whose right to the product of his effort wasnt protected, has no means....." but she uses the phrase "the man who has no right".

Yet, she also says:

Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

Here she uses the word right, in the sense A.B used it. That men "have" rights on the basis of their identity.

In "Textbook of Americanism" she says:

A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.

If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.

If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.

Here again, she uses two different meanings. She says that a man has no right to his own life, if the government can violate it. She doesnt say "If you exist only because society permits you to exist—youre right to your own life is being violated." She says, "you have no right to your own life"

If someone, who actually knows what they are talking about and not just "guessing", could clarify this to me, id be pleased.

[A questions about helping others selfishly]

People *thousands of miles away*? Do remember that we live in the real world, not some abstraction where vaccinating babies in the Congo is going to magically make a Free Society appear out of nothing. And keep in mind that you'd most likely be funneling money into the hands of tin-pot dictators and tribal lords, propping up their power instead of eliminating it. No one has enough extra wealth or time to make THAT valuable.

ummm....read what i wrote.

I said i would offer moral africans scolarships to get into universities in the west, and that it would be valuable to you that these people were living in THE WEST, instead of the hellholes in africa. I wasnt talking about making africa free, but of bringing moral africans to live in the west.

[NFL 2009]

I thin overall a little too much weight is given to quarterbacks. Surely it's better to have a good QB, but it's best to have a good team. I keep coming back to the Steelers, who've won two Superbowls with a merely adequate QB, a merely adequate offense, a ferocius defense and a good palce kicker.

Well, it is true that QB's are sometimes given too much importance, but there's no dispute over the fact that it is clearly the most important position in football. Obviously you can win with a mediocre offense and a monster defense(the 2000 Ravens), but you cant really have a good offense without a good QB. I mean, QB is the only position where you can with almost full certainty before the season say which QB will not ever win a single super bowl(as a starter). There has been pretty much 1 such QB to win the SB, and that was Trent Dilfer with the 2000 Ravens, who probably had the best defense in NFL history. That cant be said about any other position.

Id actually argue that running back is the most overhyped position. I dont mean the running game, consisting of good run blocking and good runners, but instead the importance that teams (used to) put on having that marquee back. The Vikings are a good example. No quarterback, no success. If they had a Tom Brady, or even an Eli Manning, they would be a real superbowl contender every year. With no such QB, they barely make .500, even with an Adrian Peterson.

[World Population Race Distribution]

What Sabathia says is dumb, racist crap anyway. The best players should be playing baseball, regardless of ethnicity. In addition, how interesting is it that someone of African descent discredits another person of African descent because he was raised in North America while the other was raised in Central America? It's as dumb as a white Texan woman saying that she don't think some white girl in New York is white because she's a Yankee.

Also, what is funny is that there are fewer white americans than before playing in the majors also. When the obvious observation a rational person would have made is "there are fewer americans in the majors than before, due to the fact that talented central-american and asian players have entered the league in greater numbers than before", Sabathia only notices that there are fewer black americans, and calls this a "problem".

[NFL 2009]

I also really liked the Eagles draft. Maybe they should have taken one of the more less-risky TE's as Ingram has had some issues, but all in all i cant remember getting this many guys with that much potential. The funniest thing about the people who complain about the Maclin pick, is that he is too similar to Desean Jackson, as if that was a bad thing. I mean, defenses would be scared shitless if two quick small receivers who can run miles after the catch line up against them, and considering that McNabb always gets his yardage by these short dink und dunk passes it doesnt really sound too bad to have Maclin run miles after the catch just like Westbrook and Jackson. Also, Maclin just like Jackson doesnt seem to have that annoying wide receiver disorder, where they think they are the greatest before they have ever accomplished anything.

I've never discussed sports with Objectivists before, so im interested in what you think about this question: Who is the best NFC East quarterback?

I personally would choose McNabb as no.1, and not just because im an Eagles fan. The reason being, despite him never winning the "big one", McNabb is the only one who doesnt consistantly lose games for his team. McNabb may not be clutch, but if my teams QB was Tony Romo i would go crazy. It is actually impossible to win with Romo, no matter how good he may look from time to time. Obviously you could make a case for Eli Manning, as he has a superbowl, but last year wasnt good for him, and he really benefits from having a great o-line.

This being said, i think 2009 is the year to put up or shut up for McNabb. He now has his o-line, with the Peters and Stacey Andrews acquisitions, and he has new weapons in Maclin, McCoy and even possibly Ingram.