Sir Andrew

No one has asserted that they have compromised the United States military, rather they have jeopardized our government's efforts at defending our security. The defense of the country isn't restricted exclusively to the military- diplomatic efforts exist for the sole purpose of keeping us from having to use our military at the cost of American lives. Publishing information that damages these efforts does nothing but take more diplomatic options off the table, eventually leaving military force as the only option. No one is denying that there are many interesting facts and evidence of corru

OH! It seems it didn't import from the Metablog. Here's a link to the post: http://fallingabstractions.blogspot.com/2010/12/philosophy-according-to-quantum.html

Americans have no right to government information related to the defense and national security of the country when the divulging of that information directly compromises that defense. As far as whether he's doing the right thing, in this circumstance the answer is a resounding no. He wantonly places every free (or even semi-free) country's existence at risk with his actions, and should be prosecuted as such as an enemy.

Excellent!

I'd love a drawing of Bobbie Carlyle's "Self-Made Man" statue:

Not so. By McCaskey's own admission he critcized the theory itself in the private conference held. From his resignation page: Granted, he's been oh so generous of the theory after the fact, calling it "potentially seminal" but still "inchoate" in his Amazon review, but this fact is irrelevant as he only mentions criticisms in the forum.

Some of you may or may not be aware of the fact that ObjectivismOnline has a Wiki filled with some basic content on Objectivism. The value of such a wiki is readily apparent- not only does it provide a central and free and central location for people interested in the philosophy, but could also serve as a great source for intellectual ammunition for those of us who would like a quick reference beyond what the Ayn Rand Lexicon has to offer. Furthermore, the wiki's pages show up on the first page of Google's search results for many Objectivist phrases (like "Floating Abstraction"). If we get

Hank Rearden & Francisco D'Anconia. Well, I can dream anyway

I don't think that anyone else here has said this, but the answer is simply "Life itself makes life worth living". To ask for any reason for living beyond life itself is self-defeating. Anything we might cite to you as a value will rely on your life as the standard that makes it good. Simply repeating certain actions won't make life worth living for you until you've accepted the precondition that makes it possible. Once you accept the choice of living a clearer hierarchy of values will begin to emerge as you evaluate certain facts/actions/things as good or bad for your life.

I know this entry was promised forever and a day ago but I've been incredibly busy with school and work and haven't had the time to sit down and write this one out. Since the time has passed, this post has been reposted on several meta-blogs, and tweeted enough that I don't feel comfortable letting the previous post stand publicly as my current views on the issue. After reviewing the facts available on McCaskey's site: the e-mail which Peikoff approved the release of, the recent e-mail samples between McCaskey and Harriman, and John McCaskey's own statements on the issue, it is clear that m