tito

I thought she was Leonard Peikoff's daughter...

Are you asking for examples of unions destroying profit? The auto industry is a good one. As is the railroad industry (things like forcing rail operators to have a manned caboose on every train, even though newer trains didn't need it at all, rather than making the mechanics redundant)

I don't think it is sanction, Beck always allows Yaron to demonstrate the Objectivist position in full, something which most hosts do not. Yaron always gets to talk about the fundamentals of an issue, including the moral fundamentals that are at odds with Beck's religious ideas - if anything, it is Beck sanctioning Yaron. However, there is another issue. Beck says some lunatic things, and it may get to the point where Yaron's appearances on there are just bad PR. Allusions to conspiracy theories and the 9/11 truth movement are all acceptable things to get worked up about in the eyes of Glenn Beck.

A man has a right to own a gun. Recognition of this should not be called "constitutionalist", the right doesn't come from a constitution that can be changed/ignored - but from man's nature, like all rights. Your reasoning is good, but the moral argument is most important (individual rights.)

Next week they're going to build a goldmine and wait for the gold to turn up. After all, everywhere there is a gold mine, there is gold. Therefore, mines attract gold.

Rational Jenn, a well known Objectivist parent-blogger, practices "positive discipline" - with seemingly great results.

UKOA is pretty active, I wrote an article for the Ayn Rand Forum on the BNP recently, and hope to write more soon. There's also my efforts: The Prometheus Initiative I'm based in Wales.

Worse, many private CCTV cameras (certainly those in bars) are actually linked to the police camera system here, so they can be directly monitored and recorded from the police camera centers. Though I too wonder what percentage of these are government cameras. Most streets where I live (in a small town) have police cameras on them, recording 24/7 - but these are far outnumbered by the cameras belonging to shops, restaurants, bars, hotels, etc. All businesses seem to want uniform CCTV coverage - which is often totally excessive - but their prerogative nonetheless.

Because it is morality that ultimately shapes politics. Note the jump to the right in the Reagan and Thatcher years, as soon as there was some prosperity - the consensus seemed to be "Great! Now we can be moral again" and the socialist mechanisms regrew. Nothing but a moral defence of capitalism can save it. It did not have a good one originally (God is insufficient) and allowed the left to claim the moral superiority. Altruism, being a dominant philosophy, is the reason that socialism spreads in politics, it appeals to the ethics of many people. Similarly, you can see the rising influence of pragmatic politics. See Yaron Brook's "Capitalism without guilt", from the ARC lecture series, available on the ARC and ARI websites.

This question is akin to asking a mathematician: "If 2 was a breed of giraffe and not a number, would 1+2 = 3"

Another must see, for me, in NYC is Grand Central Terminal.

Of course you must make a value judgement before acting. Though an important factor to consider is whether or not it is worth living in a dictatorship.

His argument is: 1. There are a number of "obstacles" (problems) with Objectivism. The only one he names is that it would rid us of society: instead it would lead to pirates trying to plunder everyone else. 2. "Educated" people don't like Ayn Rand. Number 1 is a complete fabrication and impossibility. Society is a group of people who live amongst each other, and deal with each other for business and personal reasons - how would this be destroyed? He does not say. The cannibalistic group of pirates scenario is also unfounded. As anyone who has the slightest clue about Objectivism will telly you, Objectivism is the rational justification for selfishness which includes recognition of individual rights. No Objectivist would infringe upon others rights, upholding individual rights is in fact crucial to achieving personal happiness, and living by plunder is not something that would appeal to any Objectivist: ours is a philosophy of traders. Number 2 is the argument from intimidation. "Educated people don't like Ayn Rand, so who are you to disagree with them?". It is essentially an attempt to embarrass or scare readers into accepting other peoples conclusions on faith.

Did calling the main character of Anthem "Prometheus", invoke mysticism? Did the Atlas Shrugged references to Atlantis imply some sort of conspiracy theory?

It was originally called Genius of Electricity, and was owned by Western Electric. So arguably they are electric cables.

Hello to a fellow Brit, There are a good few Objectivists over her - I run The Prometheus Initiative, www.prometheusinitiative.org.uk

Jokes don't change minds. Unless you count the argument from intimidation as convincing.

If your objective is to have a laugh, maybe this is the campaign for you. As I'm sure everyone here is aware, if your objective is to persuade - it must be done on a much more fundamental level. Pick your battles.

If human action was the result of molecular structure alone, a dead body would be as lively as a live one.

Anu Seppala is female.

If a burglar came to your door, would you complain that it was unfair he did not steal from your neighbour? Besides - most of them would go legal and pay the same as you if they were given an option.

No. We have half switched. We weigh humans in pounds and stones, we weigh food in kg, we drive in miles per hour, we drink beer and milk in pints, spirits in ml, most other stuff in liters.

It would appear that you've had a good post-modernist whitewash on your course. This is not a case of agreeing, feeling or wishing - these are established definitions, no debate is required. Being an Objectivist forum, we can assume that everyone here agrees with Ayn Rand's definition of art (selective recreation of reality according to persona values). Nobody once mentioned recreating the living form. No Objectivist would say that realism or "idealism" are the best forms of art. I suggest you read The Romantic Manifesto before continuing, everything you are asking and implying is covered in detail there.

I can help a little. Music doesn't ever convey themes as concrete as the ones you suggest, it is impossible. Music invokes an emotional response, and the emotions it invokes are associated with the themes you suggested. (The same emotions you would feel experiencing those things). For example, a concerto on "summer" wouldn't convey summer, it would convey the emotions associated with summer, and the listener may or may not make the same connection between emotion and concrete.

I don't think the implication of that question is justifiable. Unless you have discovered a way to scientifically map music to emotions?