Bastian Hayek

I wonder if anybody here actually read Michael Sherman's book against pseudo-science. He debunks many myth but somehow he places Rand among all the pseudoscience. From amazon: Few can talk with more personal authority about the range of human beliefs than Michael Shermer. At various times in the past, Shermer has believed in fundamentalist Christianity, alien abductions, Ayn Rand, megavitamin therapy, and deep-tissue massage. Now he believes in skepticism, and his motto is "Cognite tute--think for yourself." This updated edition of Why People Believe Weird Things covers Holocaust denial and creationism in considerable detail, and has chapters on abductions, Satanism, Afrocentrism, near-death experiences, Randian positivism, and psychics. Shermer has five basic answers to the implied question in his title: for consolation, for immediate gratification, for simplicity, for moral meaning, and because hope springs eternal. He shows the kinds of errors in thinking that lead people to believe weird (that is, unsubstantiated) things, especially the built-in human need to see patterns, even where there is no pattern to be seen. Throughout, Shermer emphasizes that skepticism (in his sense) does not need to be cynicism: "Rationality tied to moral decency is the most powerful joint instrument for good that our planet has ever known." I found that people writing against the book on Amazon are mostly christian fundamentalist.

I have written on other topics, but let me say Hello again. I am gay Objectivist and currently in San Diego. I am from Haan in Germany, but I am in California for a semester of English and Linguistics. And no, they don't read Ayn Rand.

Regarding Obama and 2010 elections: http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9785 and maybe Hillary will "obliterate Iran" at least. It is my biggest worry right now.

Why is Hongkong so much behind in GDP per capita? I thought there were the top in economic freedom for ages? And isn't the crime rate in Ireland very high? That is what my irish prof at University in Germany said, if so it would be off a list of desirable places. Sark looks nice, but I am more the big city guy!

Hi I am new to this forum, and thought my questions would best fit in here. I considered myself a neolibertarian but lately I feel increasingly as an objectivist, though there might be aspects I am not familiar with yet. I wanted to ask you whether you see any contradiction between "The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. " and "Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.." - both Ayn Rand I tend to agree with both, but I am not sure whether the second increases the legitimation of force in contrast to the first.