StrictlyLogical

Slight aside, I note Rand was quite good at wide integrations, and her seeing through false dichotomies, more than one of them in fact, was always breathtaking.
Many criticized Marxist Utopias by assuming their failure and evil outcomes was rooted in human failings to implement the system faithfully, Rand rightly noted their fundamental ideas were themselves evil.
A modern Objectivist cannot but help to notice that our mixed economy, bloated paternalistic government, increasingly socialist and authoritarian, wasteful, and corrupt institutions are a failure to meet the founding fathers explicit vision of the republic, which no matter how far short of an Objectivist utopia, is revelatory, true and Good.
Rand noted America had not ever met her full potential, never ripened to what she could and should be, but nonetheless she paid homage and great respect for her founders vision, adjudging that Republic as the greatest system ever conceived and executed heretofore.  She did bemoan her fall and criticized both parties contemporary to her time, the so-called left and right parties which she rightly saw as being little different and in fact is the main reason she lambasted the right, for all its posturing towards individual freedom revealed all the more, its hypocrisy and dishonesty. 
So she blasted one false dichotomy, of theory versus practicality in the context of utopian politics, out of the water, as well as another false dichotomy (of policy) between the so called left and right.
What is more impressive for her revelations is that she did this in spite of common and widely held beliefs in the culture, in academia, portrayed and disseminated by the “authorities” and the media.  In her time she was what modern spin doctors would call a conspiracy theorist, and to give them their due, those doctors have identified that indeed sometimes reality and human nature, incentive structures, imbalance and control of information can “conspire” to present a picture which is misleading.  They err in prescribing blind obedience and acceptance rather than further close inspection of reality. 
She was truly a rebel and yes a radical like no other.
I wonder why so many modern Objectivists, seem not to have taken on her approach of seeing through the false dichotomies, of making wider integrations than what the predominant culture is feeding us, of seeing beyond the narratives of theory versus practicality, left versus right, of seeing where real and complex forces of human nature and power lead institutions and nations, of being brave in the face of those who attack bold unpopular ideas.  

I think it has to do with the statistically predominant life experience the type of person who becomes a philosopher comes from.  Not all but most are sheltered, insular, academic and the same kind of errors (albeit of different content) which afflicted the Marxist Utopians, afflicts the Objectivist philosophers, it is as if “all we need is a globe of perfect rational humans then our institutions, laws, and systems, nations, trade, agreements, industries, local and global infrastructure, shipping, energy and food will all work…”
and perhaps it would, but it wont.
It cannot succeed, the systems that will succeed must take into account the global and human realities as well as the current state of things…  it must be formed to take us from here, not to assume we are somewhere we are not or never will be… and it must be focused on the Republic itself not a universal utopia which lies centuries if not millennia forward.
I wonder what Rand would say if she had lived through all the years since her death, observing, thinking, integrating, in her non naive rebellious way, what she would have to say about the best way forward given all the threats, in all their forms, throughout the world and from within.  
 
She certainly would find any fault, any little error, with the remedial cures being put in place but for sure she would be fully cognizant of the complex situation of the present moment and have a good view of the path forward.

Slight aside, I note Rand was quite good at wide integrations, and her seeing through false dichotomies, more than one of them in fact, was always breathtaking.
Many criticized Marxist Utopias by assuming their failure and evil outcomes was rooted in human failings to implement the system faithfully, Rand rightly noted their fundamental ideas were themselves evil.
A modern Objectivist cannot but help to notice that our mixed economy, bloated paternalistic government, increasingly socialist and authoritarian, wasteful, and corrupt institutions are a failure to meet the founding fathers explicit vision of the republic, which no matter how far short of an Objectivist utopia, is revelatory, true and Good.
Rand noted America had not ever met her full potential, never ripened to what she could and should be, but nonetheless she paid homage and great respect for her founders vision, adjudging that Republic as the greatest system ever conceived and executed heretofore.  She did bemoan her fall and criticized both parties contemporary to her time, the so-called left and right parties which she rightly saw as being little different and in fact is the main reason she lambasted the right, for all its posturing towards individual freedom revealed all the more, its hypocrisy and dishonesty. 
So she blasted one false dichotomy, of theory versus practicality in the context of utopian politics, out of the water, as well as another false dichotomy (of policy) between the so called left and right.
What is more impressive for her revelations is that she did this in spite of common and widely held beliefs in the culture, in academia, portrayed and disseminated by the “authorities” and the media.  In her time she was what modern spin doctors would call a conspiracy theorist, and to give them their due, those doctors have identified that indeed sometimes reality and human nature, incentive structures, imbalance and control of information can “conspire” to present a picture which is misleading.  They err in prescribing blind obedience and acceptance rather than further close inspection of reality. 
She was truly a rebel and yes a radical like no other.
I wonder why so many modern Objectivists, seem not to have taken on her approach of seeing through the false dichotomies, of making wider integrations than what the predominant culture is feeding us, of seeing beyond the narratives of theory versus practicality, left versus right, of seeing where real and complex forces of human nature and power lead institutions and nations, of being brave in the face of those who attack bold unpopular ideas.  

I think it has to do with the statistically predominant life experience the type of person who becomes a philosopher comes from.  Not all but most are sheltered, insular, academic and the same kind of errors (albeit of different content) which afflicted the Marxist Utopians, afflicts the Objectivist philosophers, it is as if “all we need is a globe of perfect rational humans then our institutions, laws, and systems, nations, trade, agreements, industries, local and global infrastructure, shipping, energy and food will all work…”
and perhaps it would, but it wont.
It cannot succeed, the systems that will succeed must take into account the global and human realities as well as the current state of things…  it must be formed to take us from here, not to assume we are somewhere we are not or never will be… and it must be focused on the Republic itself not a universal utopia which lies centuries if not millennia forward.
I wonder what Rand would say if she had lived through all the years since her death, observing, thinking, integrating, in her non naive rebellious way, what she would have to say about the best way forward given all the threats, in all their forms, throughout the world and from within.  
 
She certainly would find any fault, any little error, with the remedial cures being put in place but for sure she would be fully cognizant of the complex situation of the present moment and have a good view of the path forward.

“A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.” - Benjamin Franklin

Something about intifadas brings out the worst in everyone, mirite?

Thanks for sharing your questions, SL.
Knapp's accusation against Aristotle is that in making quantity the subject of mathematics, one is diverted from the relationships among quantities that are pursued in mathematics such as Euclid's (2014, 40). That is false. It is an outlandish disregard for Aristotle's treatment of geometry. Knapp wanted to focus on relationships, which is fine and usual, and that focus is not a divergence from Aristotle and not unusual. He wanted to bolster Rand's focus on measurement in general epistemology by counting it as (relationships and) the primitive of mathematics and as in our connection to the world in elementary mathematics. He enormously loosened what measurement is so as to claim that geometry of Euclid—whose theorems are of relationships, but not of measurements (no scaled rulers, etc.)—is about measurement. With this loose notion of measurement, Knapp tried to explicate what is going on in higher mathematics and keep the higher also tied to the world.
Far truer to mathematical practice and stronger in tying all to the world is the Franklin book mentioned by Eiuol upstream, which adds structure as topic of mathematics, joined with quantity.
To say that quantity is more fundamental than measurement, as Rand does in her exchange with Peikoff, is only as in saying that Existence is more fundamental than consciousness and is indeed required (as both object and life-supporter) for there to be consciousness (or any other living activities). I follow Rand on that and on the meaning of objectivity.

How are “relations of quantity” as subject to study different and distinguishable from “quantity”?  
 
What do you mean by foundational?  And of “what”? In what sphere?  
Is mechanical structure and function foundational of experience?  Is a relation of mere causal connection even complete causal dependency foundational as between incommensurate spheres… shall we say the electromagnetic forces are one of the fundamentals of literary romantic poetry?  Is the strong force (without which all nuclei would not exist) foundational to a persons edifice of knowledge and experience?
Certainly from a third person physical analysis … indeed causation is fundamental to the physical results… but within the sphere of first person experience, fundamentality in that structure is of a kind in that structure.  The foundation and pillars are some kind of first or base experience … and yes but of course the whole things sits on the ground of physicality and causation but they are externals.
Are the foundations of Objectivity qua mental activity within that sphere or do they lie in the external ground of all things in existence?

Is a straw man hypothetical... like asking what a moral society for psychopaths or cannibals should look like. 

The trivial answer is to only spend money for proper purposes, and we know what those purposes are. However, money is also spent to cover prior obligations, for example the government borrows money from citizens with the promise to pay interest on that loan (savings bonds for example). The government also steals money under the promise to return a portion of it in the future (social security). The government has numerous contracts with individuals and businesses, which create an obligation to pay in return for goods and services. Sure, you can declare that the government has no right to make such promises and no person has the right to rely on such promises, because anyone should know that these are improper functions of government. The underlying premise of that thinking would be that a contract is automatically void if a party should know that it is morally suspicious.
Oh, also, we do not know for sure whether it is morally proper for the government to spend money enforcing contracts. That is because there is no existing pre-payment for litigation plan (i.e. the option of “buying enforceability” for property rights). We know that you have the right to have your contracts enforced, it is not determined whether you have to pay for exercising that right.
Clearly, the first step, which is strictly political, is to not authorize future improper expenditures. Dealing with past expenditures and the liquidation of existing booty to satisfy debts is a second and later step. Repudiation of debt is highly immoral, and is not under discussion. Evil acts have severe consequences. Youi, youj and youk all advocated the existing regime of “infinite government-supplied free stuff”, and thus bear moral responsibility for the severe consequences of government expenditure.

“cut payouts to the citizens and raise taxes on them.”
Ha, besides cutting the payouts, you almost sound like a mixed economy type….
Why not take a view through an Objectivist lens?
If what is moral and proper is a government wielding its monopoly on the use of force solely to protect individual rights, the broad category of “corruption and waste” properly defined includes any and all violation of the individual by imposition of force exceeding the metes and bounds of proper government fulfilling its proper role.
With that in mind, and keeping in mind America, even at her founding never met the high standard of an ideal laissez-faire capitalism, one could look at various aspects of America’s past, and conclude it should be better, i.e. greatly reduced or eliminated.
Countless departments, regulatory agencies, licensing bodies, every part of the welfare state, none of which are proper branches of government should be eliminated. All funding and government grants to any cause or NGO should be eliminated.  I have no stats but a proper government in broad strokes, should be much smaller than a tenth of what it is now, and in a free and prosperous productive nation such would  be able to shrink even smaller.
It’s not a question of reducing corruption and waste “in” government, but excising whole portions of so-called government because they themselves constitute corruption and waste.  Afuero!
That moral and proper exercise is the “real solution” to the problem.
 

A mathematician eventually changed careers to study this, James Lindsay,
https://newdiscourses.com/author/jameslindsay/
 
Woke is a form of Marxism.
 
 

It appears to me that this blog is being foisted upon us as though it were the official position of this site.
At the very least, it seems that what it says is given special sanction and endorsement by virtue of its special treatment, as no other blogs are automatically posted to the forum.
I suggest either the inclusion of other blog posters to balance the views of this single man… whether purported Objectivist or otherwise… and if not, I urge complete removal of any automatic blog posts.

Eloquent.
Here Stephen Hicks conducts a greatly reduced, Woke whistle-stop tour
 
 
 
 

You do realize an Objectivist forum (and America historically) are not gathering grounds for Socialists or Marxists, right?

You do realize an Objectivist forum (and America historically) are not gathering grounds for Socialists or Marxists, right?

You do realize an Objectivist forum (and America historically) are not gathering grounds for Socialists or Marxists, right?

You do realize an Objectivist forum (and America historically) are not gathering grounds for Socialists or Marxists, right?

SK
Imagine covering one slit leaving the other slit open and observing the pattern K1.
Imagine covering the other slit leaving the one slit open and observing pattern K2.
Now observe the pattern K3 with both slits open, it is neither K1 nor K2 and it also is not a sum of K1 and K2.
Without use of any science to speculate about what is "really going on" K3 is not K1 AND K2, K3 is not K1, and K3 is not K2.
To make K3 the electron needed to pass over, by, through a screen with two open slits. K3 requires as a necessity, electron passing + two open slits + hitting a screen.
 
How to put this into words is somewhat academic, but the electron interacting with and being processed through the TWO slits is what makes K3 and K3 is real.

Is P1 really true?  If the wave properties of the electron are important, can't it go through both slits?
 

With regard to knowledge of the outside world and the acquisition thereof there is no necessary contradiction between much of psychoanalysis and claiming we start as a tabula rasa with respect thereto.
If one were to hold that the human mind is structureless, bereft of any instinctual predispositions and absent any hard wired basic traits one would be wrong…. But as to “concepts” those are not formed and cannot be held or maintained in the same way as the “content” which we come with by default.  Concepts are formed afterward where there were none.. ie on the blank tablet of conceptual knowledge which we spend the rest of our lives accumulating.

With regard to knowledge of the outside world and the acquisition thereof there is no necessary contradiction between much of psychoanalysis and claiming we start as a tabula rasa with respect thereto.
If one were to hold that the human mind is structureless, bereft of any instinctual predispositions and absent any hard wired basic traits one would be wrong…. But as to “concepts” those are not formed and cannot be held or maintained in the same way as the “content” which we come with by default.  Concepts are formed afterward where there were none.. ie on the blank tablet of conceptual knowledge which we spend the rest of our lives accumulating.

I agree very frightening... the work of the actual courts and legislatures have not led us towards what we both agree would be correct and due regard for the 1st amendment, in a proper, individual rights protecting nation.

I do not believe in the concept of rights having exceptions.  All rights defined properly are absolute and have no exceptions... the so call exceptions are really simply events, actions, situations, what have you etc. which fall outside of the  actual area of the right.  Its like pointing to a map having an area purportedly showing what is your property ... but then saying this bit is really George's and that bit is really Ken's... in truth the map was drawn up wrong... draw it right and all of it, as indicated, is absolutely and exclusively (and exclusive of Ken's and George's) your property.  Concepts are the same, they can be sophisticated whether nor not they can be referred to with a single word, and just because we do not always have an easy way to express or summarize a concept does not mean the concept itself cannot have a "border" which is sophisticated.
So a right to freedom of expression means you are free to say what you believe, what you think, to joke about what you do not etc., not to commit libel for the purpose of ruining someone's career or life, nor a right to incite a stampede in a theatre by yelling fire when there is none... nor the right to threaten a person to make them believe you actually intend to kill them ... what is absolute is not the right to SAY whatever you want in any circumstance with no repercussion from the state... speech can be fraud, speech can be a kind of assault (serious death threats)... but if we are careful about what we mean, i.e. freedom to express one's opinion... then we have something which is an absolute.  I do not have all the boundaries of this concept "freedom of speech" determined... that is something proper courts and legislatures determine, in accordance with the constitution over many many cases and bills, over the years...
it certainly is less than you can say anything at anytime to anyone, but something more like you can express yourself without fear of government initiating force against you.

Tara Smith says something about this which is much better than how I try to explain it:
 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3166234_code955231.pdf?abstractid=3166234&mirid=1&type=2
Here is ARI referring to the paper:
https://ari.aynrand.org/tara-smith-pinpoints-confusions-in-the-free-speech-debate/
 
I will read the rest of your post later.

Our complex world is far larger than most people's ability to personally access geographically, and requires that we rely on communications, media, publications, etc. to perceive reality thereby or to receive claims by other people about that reality.
We live in an age where increasingly, media can be faked or simulated, photoshopped, AI generated etc.  We also live in an age in which civility and common decency for some has eroded such that brazen dishonesty and bias is rampant.  Of course everyone says they are unbiased or at least, telling the truth.
"Consensus", we here all know, is not a measure of reality by any stretch.  100 popular lies to evade reality are no more truthful, by virtue of how many or popular they are.  
The only thing in any society protecting whatever freedom they have from those who aim to reduce it, for any reason, is ABSOLUTE Freedom of Expression (within the proper definition of what that constitutes).
ANYONE advocating anything other than this should be regarded with the highest of suspicions.
 
........
A factchecker claims nonbias and truthfulness... such is profered as ... fact.  How does one "check" such a claim?  What organization or person is devoid of any possible bias, motivation, indeed personal experience?  Even were the entity to personally believe in their objectivity... those kinds of people are even more risky to trust because they do not see thier own biases, their own emotional hangups, their own skewed bias confirming thinking, and the more intellectual, often the more self-unaware...
I do not know of a model for any "central" single organizational fact checker, curator, claim debunker, etc. which has the kinds of checks and balances, that could satisfy me given all the concerns above.  The only "system" I could think of would need at minimum to allow completely disparate views and all of them, each allowed to present evidence (not merely links to other "opinions"), without moderation (which itself could introduce favoritism).  In fact even popularity (upvoting answers) could be a false-positive bias for truth... choosing or ranking any answer or any answerer are fraught with the same problem.


“Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?” -Groucho Marx
and we are living in a world where this has never been more relevant.
 
In the end I suspect there cannot be any solution better worthy of trust, and at the same time requiring diligent independent scrutiny, than everything which can be said and heard in a totally free market of ideas.

Courts and legislatures have, in accordance with the Constitution over many many cases and bills, over the years, determined certain things about freedom of expression. The most dangerous of those determinations regards defamation and its exceptions. It’s not too difficult to hold that many of these determinations are not proper, it is much more challenging to define what is proper and to objectively identify improper restrictions – or their lack. For instance, is the “public person” exception in defamation law proper; is it proper that a publisher has the same liability as an author for publishing lies? Is it proper that a newspaper publisher has less freedom of expression than an internet publisher does? Is it proper that a public school teacher be prohibited from expressing their religious (or non-religious) views at work, or that fundamentalists have no right to erect memorial crosses on public property? What is the proper definition of “fraud” whereby submitting fake certificates of electoral ascertainment to the Archivist constitutes fraud?

The US has a unique, and precarious, commitment to “Free Speech”. This commitment is under constant legislative attack (because most people do not support the First Amendment, they support their own right to express their own opinion), and the only serious firewall has – so far – been SCOTUS. But SCOTUS has not been particularly absolutist in its understanding of freedom of speech. “Commercial speech” remains a persistent exception to the First Amendment. There are substantial restrictions on actions essential to expression – contributions to politicians are at once vital to the ability of an individual to express his viewpoint, and also regulated by law. The contorted path of exceptions and exceptions within exceptions carved out by the courts should give every rational thinker cause to fear the ultimate collapse of the First Amendment as a rock-solid principle of American law. It has now become an annual event to determine what percentage of Americans think that the First Amendment goes too far – a position held by about 50% of Americans. I find that fairly frightening.

Our complex world is far larger than most people's ability to personally access geographically, and requires that we rely on communications, media, publications, etc. to perceive reality thereby or to receive claims by other people about that reality.
We live in an age where increasingly, media can be faked or simulated, photoshopped, AI generated etc.  We also live in an age in which civility and common decency for some has eroded such that brazen dishonesty and bias is rampant.  Of course everyone says they are unbiased or at least, telling the truth.
"Consensus", we here all know, is not a measure of reality by any stretch.  100 popular lies to evade reality are no more truthful, by virtue of how many or popular they are.  
The only thing in any society protecting whatever freedom they have from those who aim to reduce it, for any reason, is ABSOLUTE Freedom of Expression (within the proper definition of what that constitutes).
ANYONE advocating anything other than this should be regarded with the highest of suspicions.
 
........
A factchecker claims nonbias and truthfulness... such is profered as ... fact.  How does one "check" such a claim?  What organization or person is devoid of any possible bias, motivation, indeed personal experience?  Even were the entity to personally believe in their objectivity... those kinds of people are even more risky to trust because they do not see thier own biases, their own emotional hangups, their own skewed bias confirming thinking, and the more intellectual, often the more self-unaware...
I do not know of a model for any "central" single organizational fact checker, curator, claim debunker, etc. which has the kinds of checks and balances, that could satisfy me given all the concerns above.  The only "system" I could think of would need at minimum to allow completely disparate views and all of them, each allowed to present evidence (not merely links to other "opinions"), without moderation (which itself could introduce favoritism).  In fact even popularity (upvoting answers) could be a false-positive bias for truth... choosing or ranking any answer or any answerer are fraught with the same problem.


“Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?” -Groucho Marx
and we are living in a world where this has never been more relevant.
 
In the end I suspect there cannot be any solution better worthy of trust, and at the same time requiring diligent independent scrutiny, than everything which can be said and heard in a totally free market of ideas.