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 corruption brought to light by these documents, and this may raise them a rung in hell. If they had evidence of corruption though then the prudent and moral thing to do would be to release redacted documents relating to that corruption only. However the indiscriminate publishing of these documents and their recent threats of releasing unredacted versions make their intentions quite clear.

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 the wiki in decent enough shape, we could start inserting external links on Wikipedia articles on Objectivism. I've been an admin for a couple of months now and have started working on the Main Page as well as some of the content of the pages, but I don't have enough time to make it a one-man show. The main purpose of this thread then, is to ask you to contribute to the wiki. You could edit some pages or even providing feedback on an article's talk page would be extremely helpful. Any thoughts/ideas/suggestions/contributions would be greatly appreciated

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 my previous argument about there not being enough evidence simply doesn't hold anymore. Furthermore, I learned another fact that was key to the issue- McCaskey is still welcome at ARI events. Let me explain the implications of that last fact- if McCaskey is still sanctioned by the Institute, then the "philosophical principles" that M has criticized is not Objectivist principle per se, but the principles set forth in Peikoff's Theory of Induction. It is clear that a special relationship exists between the Ayn Rand Institute and Leonard Peikoff, the executor of Ayn Rand's estate. One simply has to observe the number of articles, essays, and interviews contained on ARI's website that end with the footnote "Used with permission by the Estate of Ayn Rand," and I would speculate that a certain arrangement between the two regarding the distribution of Peikoff's materials through the Institutes's bookstores (his site redirects you there) and the use of Ayn Rand's materials or discounts on her books. The issue, therefore, was not a matter of excommunicating an otherwise good intellectual, but simply a matter among the Board of Directors of the Institute. In this instance, the (now former) Chairman of the Board was criticizing one of the Institute's founders and top contributors (if not in dollars, then intellectual ammunition.) In other words, Peikoff's "him or me" ultimatum was in essence "Me, the Estate of Ayn Rand, and our arrangement- or John McCaskey," not some dogmatic appeal to authority based on his being Ayn Rand's intellectual heir. One thing I keep hearing is that Peikoff should simply "man up" and sit down with McCaskey and talk this out, and by not doing so he is not being a proper intellectual. But why does the burden lie on Peikoff to do so? Harriman's book readily acknowledges from the outset that it is Peikoff's theory applied to physics and by McCaskey's own admission he has never spoken with Peikoff directly about it. If McCaskey has an issue with Peikoff's theory, then Peikoff is the one to talk to, not Harriman or any other intellectual. On that note, blaming Peikoff alone is neither fair nor just. The last thing I've heard is that Peikoff needs to make a public statement. After reading this post, hopefully you'll see that Peikoff's email is enough of a statement, and anyone claiming that this is intellectual suicide (aka Robert Tracinski) is simply not considering all the facts available or actively evading them. For an intellectual activist like Tracinski, a lack of correction, retraction, or clarification given these facts is an act of evasion, and one should judge that act accordingly. For those interested in a little more detailed and first-hand information, Diana Hsieh made a post on NoodleFood a few days ago that confirmed what I was thinking about the time. Particularly of note is Yaron Brook's comments to the effect that the issue was an issue of the Board of Directors. Meta-blog cross-posting