tito

Clearly, she wasn't in favour of legislating them out. The shareholders are entitled to whatever rights they have contractually obtained. However, both of those examples are when the industrial giants are being (or are potentially being) held down by committee. For example, if a board of directors had said to John Rockefeller "Nah, putting oil in wine barrels is the way we've always done it. We won't let you change it" - obviously it would be in nobody's interest, since this was one of the things Rockefeller did to revolutionise the industry and make a fortune. Even if no rights were violated, it still wouldn't be a good outcome. Another example is Dagny not running everything past the Taggart Transcontinental board of directors.

JeffS - to "enjoy" a film is to experience a certain emotional response to it. Emotions are not uncontrollable, random sensations - they are grounded in your values. The implicit or explicit message a filmmaker portrays is therefore directly relative to how much you enjoy it.

A wonderful article. I saw one of these productions of a Rachmaninoff opera advertised, I nearly went out of curiosity - now I'm glad that I did not.

What an absolute joke the church in this country is. Fortunately there are almost no christians here.

They wanted to abridge the courtroom speech, Rand convinced them not to do so.

Evidence is a fine thing.

It depends, if he actually offers it on his own website, or he releases the music under a license such as Creative Commons - then of course you can download it. If he is just making some statement, but his music still has a proprietary license attached to it - then you probably cannot, since the record label etc. still need to be reimbursed.

Think of it like this: Either a government can be ignorant to the concept of a marriage, and every time a marriage related dispute goes through the courts, the various officials can study the contracts between the two people and relearn the nature of the relationship. Or, there could just exist a concept 'marriage' which the courts recognise, since they will inevitably deal with many such contracts daily. That isn't to say that two marital contracts can't differ - but the concept of what legally constitutes a marriage is a matter of law, and I'll leave that to someone more knowledgeable about legalese.

Michael, I accept and agree with what you say - and I am familiar with the texts mentioned. Yet I'm still unable to point my finger at anyone seriously pushing for a type of Kantian or Kantian-descended philosophy. To some extent the church was enabled by Kant, given his justifications of sacrifice and mysticism, but even they aren't coming up with anything new. I simply don't see any philosophical movements outside of Objectivism. Is it only a vacuum we are up against?

Many Objectvist scholars say the dominant philosophy of our age is that of Immanuel Kant. I completely understand that most people have gained some implicit form of Kant's philosophy, but just where are its proponents? Do there actually exist individuals and organisations pushing these ideas, or are they the bitter remains of dead and retired activists? I ask because I have never encountered activists with a real philosophical position outside of Objectivism, except for the very last of the now-ignored Marxist breed. I'm looking for professional academics, think tanks with an actual impact, etc. Can anyone shed some light on this?

The BBC has never reflected the culture. It raises its money by threatening to arrest people who don't subscribe (it's a crime to own a television without subscribing to the BBC... seriously). I get letters threatening to imprison me weekly! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a_QX3DECRE That is the advert they use to "persuade" "customers". Ordinary people outside of the BBC chatterati are quite receptive to Objectivist ideas.

Hi, allow me to give you some pointers. In your reply, you stated: I have put your claim in bold, and your grounds for that claim in italics. This is essentially circular. It is similar to making the scientific claim "Voltage is proportional to resistance because ohms law says that voltage is proportional to resistance". This is of course untrue - it amounts to "because I(or Rand) said so". In future, it might be worth mentioning in your post that you are presenting your own grasp of the topic, and not claiming to present the Objectivist theory. Something like "I'm still learning Objectivism, but as I understand it…" - this etiquette will make sure people don't assume the worst of you. If you want to clear the issue up in your own mind, Dr Peikoff's OPAR has a brilliant description of the metaphysical premises of Objectivism. Have fun learning =)

Actually, though this is a little off topic, I happen to believe that science is best taught chronologically and with respect to inventors. So you start with the self evident observations (there are shiny dots in the sky) etc. Then you progress through each new theory, each new discovery and each better attempt at modeling that section of the universe. When you start without scientific background (as school children do), this is a great way to properly integrate a scientific theory.

Krattle, your awfully distasteful hyperbole makes me wonder whether you have any respect for sex at all. I don't know this of course, but I'd politely suggest you take a more civil and respectable tone. I'd like to summarise and clear up my position. Casual sex: I define this as any sex that occurs outside of a romantic relationship. Including sex between friends, strangers, single people and couples (naturally, with each others consent). I maintain that it can be good, and a rational value -- but like all values, it is only good in certain contexts. For example: You have not found a romantic partner - but you have a friend, and you are both attracted to each other. You have no reason to suspect they have any sort of infection, and you both know the purpose and extent of the sexual relationship. That is just one scenario, there could be plenty of other good ones. There are also bad ones. For example: Somebody approaches you at a bar, you quickly get the impression that they aren't worth knowing, they have bad personality traits and obviously hold some very bad central ideas. You have no way of judging if they are likely to have some sort of STD and you do not have any contraception. Those are examples of very good, and very bad scenarios in which to engage in casual sex. Of course, you can find bad scenarios even in a romantic relationship: Your partner is diagnosed with HIV, for example. Obviously, just like with every other potential value, it requires both good context and good judgment.

I've never met a muslim. I'm european.

You seem to have missed the point of the paleolithic diet. The principle isn't ancient, but evolved. Man, like all animals, evolved over millions of years -- man adapted to the foods naturally available to him. On the other hand, agriculture, grains, synthetic fats, vegetable oils etc. are all recent developments - man has not had enough time to evolve to process these foods. Of course, un-evolutionary does not mean the same as unhealthy: it is perfectly plausible that in the future, we may engineer a food type that sits well with our existing nutritional requirements. However, it does mean that we should treat all new foods with some caution, since they do not have the biological guarantee that comes with the foods we evolved to eat. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that all of the foods deemed unhealthy in the paleolithic diet are, in fact, unhealthy. Several sources have been cited, but some more of my favourites are: Free The Animal Dr Diana Hsieh's posts on food Weston A. Price foundation There are probably more than enough links on those. I am convinced that the Paleolithic diet *is* the scientific diet.

Cast me sceptical, but that would surprise me. We are not talking about cartoon characters.

As Jen and SNerd pointed out, I'm not suggesting any sort of prioritisation of casual sex over long term relationships, neither am I suggesting sex with people you don't know. Sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, discovering your partner is a maniac, etc. are all risks associated with *all* sex. You may know somebody for 5 years, then have a casual relationship, yet I doubt you would object to a sexual relationship between a romantic couple who knew each other for just 1 year. The two aren't even exclusive.

I agree with all of the above. Sex, just like the rest of life, shouldn't be treated lightly. It goes without saying that one should judge the costs, risks and values involved before making any choice. Though I don't think it needs to be confined to situations such as when your ideal partner is not available. Even if you were in a great committed relationship, I can't see any reason why sexual exclusivity needs to be treated as a moral axiom: it is fine, given the appropriate context.

I don't accept your definition of casual sex. Casual sex would be sex where you do not expect to have a romantic relationship. You may well be friends or have some other sort of relationship -- or it could just be in the bedroom. Physical pleasure is not the only thing one gains from sex, even outside of romance, just like exercise isn't the only thing you gain from playing sport. You bring up four possible negative outcomes: Hurt Feelings: Casual sex does not mean sex between idiots. Both parties should, of course, understand the nature of the situation. This is by no means a problem. Regret: Sure, you can feel regret, maybe at a later date you no longer think they were worth it. Just like you can feel regret about a romantic relationship that doesn't work out, or feel regret about a career move, or a friendship. Fear of regret is never a good argument to hold back from doing something. Good analysis minimises the chances of regret, but as fallible beings we cannot be sheltered from it. We can learn from it, and get over it. Abortions: Thanks to modern technology, birth control is both cheap and effective. STDs: See above As for your comment on Rand, even if she were alive to give your theory her stamp of approval, her doing so would not change my mind one bit. Unless better arguments for your case can be presented : the imagined sanction of a dead genius does not constitute proof.

Frankly, I'm not sure I see the problem with casual, safe sex. You don't gain as much from it as you do when you are in a great relationship, but you don't lose anything either (provided you are attracted to the other party, and you take a few precautions) Even if you later think that it is a person that, on reflection, isn't good enough to have slept with -- the only real loss is the time you spent. Of course it's also important to approach the whole thing honestly: both honesty to yourself, and to the other party.

Fire is another metaphor for knowledge. The metaphor works in as far as Prometheus was being tortured because he brought new knowledge. Furthermore, much like knowledge, fire can't be stolen. If I light a candle from yours, you don't lose your fire: there is new fire made. Similarly, wealth is made by businessmen, not taken. Myths often take the very abstract and make them very concrete, of course some aspects will be lost, but the metaphor remains useful.

This topic deals with two separate but related issues. The first is the target audience of Objectivist efforts, the second is the alleged appeasement of the right wing/libertarian movements. On the issue of a target audience, I do not see any cause for concern. All philosophical activism by an Objectivist will merely be pointing out the truth, in some form or another. Nobody in the movement is playing up certain ideas to please a certain audience, while keeping hush about the ones they disagree with. As such, Objectivist efforts are always addressed at the same audience: anyone willing to think about them honestly, it makes no discrimination over what political ideas or philosophical misconceptions they currently hold. The only circumstance in which I can see this being an issue is in minor strategic decisions. For example, it may be the case that there are a greater number of intellectually honest people on the left (though this has by no means been established), and therefore left leaning newspapers should be targeted with greater priority. Is this the extent of your point? The second issue is of far greater importance. I agree that sanction of the right, simply because of some political overlap, is suicide for any movement. When the truth is compromised for a falsehood, only the falsehood benefits. However - beyond the dwindling pseudo-Objectivist circles of David Kelley and the like I do not see any examples of this happening. Anyone who can show me a legitimate instance of this happening will have my full attention.

This is utterly divorced of context. Check any work from any serious Objectivist, you will note the absence of "Dear socialists," or "Dear Libertarians" from the top of the page. It is also worth pointing out that no examples of the supposed sanction or advocacy of libertarian or conservative movements have been cited.

Are the senses of smell, touch and taste actually appropriate for art? I'm not sure it can actually be possible to integrate any sort of concepts through these senses. Taste is the detection of certain chemicals by the tongue. We can detect them individually or in combinations. Let's assume (though I doubt it is true) that the fundamental tastes are sweet, salty, bitter, etc. Something can taste sweet, or maybe even both sweet and bitter, but this is the extent of the combinations. If we took every colour in a painting and mixed them on a canvas, or drew a square containing each colour - we would sense the same fundamental thing (red, blue, green, pink) but it most certainly would not be art. Vision lets us say both "I see red, blue, green and orange on this page", those are the sensations. These can then be integrated into perceptions "I see red, blue, green and orange (sensation) on this page, it creates an image of a duck (perception) These percepts can then be integrated in the appropriate context into concepts "I see red, blue, green and orange on this page (sensation), it creates an image of a duck (perception), stylised to emphasise the motion of its flight in a romanticist way (concept). Art is on the conceptual level. A smear isn't art, a photograph isn't art. This level of integration is nowhere near possible with taste. We can sense the chemicals, but I am not even sure perceptual integration of these is possible, let alone conceptual. Any comments?