James Bond

Seasteading seems much more reasonable to me. It will be much easier to create a fresh, small capitalist country and watch it grow, than to try to save, let alone restore, a 300 million person nation from the brink of economic (philosophical) bankruptcy.

Update. My sister read the Fountainhead, and said it's one of her favorite books she's read so far.

Peikoff used the analogue of objectivism as a constitution, with additions/revisions being a derivative of the founding, closed document. I think this is true, but I think the constitution has yet to be enumerated entirely. As Rand says, more work is evidently necessary, and that work can and should be called objectivist if it is a coherent, necessary, branch. In this sense, Rand's work is objectivist, so is Peikoff's, Kelley's, or yours, if and only if it adheres to the systematic principle of pure reason. The system by its nature should seek to build more of itself, and reinforce its inviolate power. Example: I think that homosexual relationships can be, and probably are, moral. I do not think they are "hideous." You might say that AR's opinions on homosexuality were not philosophical, but I think they were. What individual objectivists conclude is objectivist is ultimately based on their rational analysis, so there will rarely if ever be a 100% agreement. Hopefully there will be 90%-99% agreement. Every objectivist should properly think his conception of objectivism is more complete than his neighbor's. You think you are more right, and you should, but you're not.

Here's a quote from a radio interview Ayn Rand did with Garth R. Ancier in 1976. Ancier asks: "Miss Rand, is there anything more to say about your philosophy that you haven't said already?" Ayn Rand replies: I'm glad you are not that acquainted with my philosophy, because if you were, you'd know I haven't nearly said everything yet. I do have a complete philosophical system, but the elaboration of a system is a job that no philosopher can finish in his lifetime. There is an awful lot of work yet to be done. I think this supports the idea that objectivism is an open system. The system itself is secure and complete, but there is much philosophical work yet to be done.

Thanks for you thoughts, peoples. I suppose it does come down to what the concept of "prestige" really is. If it means just eliciting emotions in others..then it's second handedness defined. If it denotes a designated respect, then it's another creature entirely.

I've found myself thinking a lot about status lately. I have a cousin who teaches at Harvard, and has offered to set me up an interview for admission. I don't have any real desire or need to go back to school..but this offer has me thinking. I'd love the prestige of being a Harvard educated professor..how much second handedness do you think is appropriate, if any?

I wish Rand Paul had replied something more along the lines of: "No. Believing in freedom of speech and property means allowing things which I am fundamentally opposed to."

It's a beautiful thing. Probably one of the few times in the authors' lives when they actually take a firm stand on anything, ever.

I've read worse. Think about what the existence of Ayn Rand and objectivism does to liberal's belief system. It's no wonder that they resort to.

One thing I've been thinking about lately is where to draw the line in "mutli"-cultural aspects. For example, the multiculturalist approach is obviously evil, but what about distinct culturalism? For example, I might (for some reason) enjoy some of Sweden's cultural content, even though it I don't really see the point in making doll horses and displaying them in my house. Or Parisian culture. Or whatever example you like. So if you have a comment on 'culturalism', I'd enjoy hearing it.

If I had gone to a community college, say, one thing I would probably do is exhaustively calculate out the statistics and numbers of how much money I pay in taxes for which departments, with how much money is put into the school, and how much I would pay in the coming years. And even if state funded education in the US was eradicated after 5 years, I would give back the money to the rightful tax payers.

I don't want anything I haven't earned. If I haven't earned something, in any example, I won't take it, unless I have no choice. I would never accept welfare, or support a statist country, or go to a public/state school. There are of course, some things which in which we have no choice, like driving on government roads. But even if it would make my life much easier, accepting something from a robber condones theft. No thanks.

I just moved to a new state and town, and I'm looking for a job. About a week ago I went into a place that helps people into jobs. A lady there asked me if I was on unemployment. I said no. She asked why not. I said I didn't believe in it. She said that I should think about getting some benefits. I nodded politely, but in my mind I was thinking: "I would rather starve." I'm serious. I would much rather be completely homeless and foodless than use a gun to steal from someone. Granted, I have paid and will continue to pay vast amounts of money into this system of robbery, for more than will compensate. I think as objectivists we need to act on principle. Who's life do you think is more satisfying? My life as a person with integrity, or the "comfortable" person on welfare? We can't just put off our principles by saying 'well, in the future this will be bad.' That's what our enemies do. We need live by our philosophy today, here, in reality, because that's what will make us happy.

So here's the additions so far: "Viable Values" by Tara Smith "The Logical Structure of Objectivism" by Kelley Ayn Rand's letters

Here's what I've read: -all of Ayn Rand's fiction/non-fiction (excluding only "Red Pawn") -The Ayn Rand Lexicon -OPAR by Peikoff -Den Uyl and Rasmussen's book on AR -James T. Baker's "Ayn Rand" -Best of AR's Q/A -1-40 of Peikoff's podcasts here's what I've heard I should read: "The Ayn Rand Reader"/"Voice of Reason" "The Ominous Parallels" by Peikoff "Normative Values" by Tara Smith "Ayn Rand" by Allan Gothelf "The Evidence of the Senses" by Kelley and I guess there is teh upcoming: "DIM Hypothesis" by Peikoff and Binswanger's work on consciousness But what is some other seminal objectivist scholarship I should read? Suggestions welcome.

I've really enjoyed learning about seduction, and I think there is a lot of value to be gained from the field. As one subset of social skills, I think both often help to make a person more complete. In that way its fun and moral. Of course, as Ms. Rand says, a person shouldn't get their self esteem from "scoring" with women. But, casual sex isn't necessary a bad or a good thing, and I'm fine with it until I find the right person that turns sex into a necessarily good thing.

So are you saying that you think this golfer has no existential values or that he does?

I'm currently reading "The Philosophical Thought of Ayn Rand," which is a collection of scholarly critiques of objectivism. One of the essays talks about how according to objectivism, you can't have productivity without reason. But one scholar asks the question of whether it would be possible to have self esteem without productivity. He gives an example of a young man who devotes his 20's to amassing wealth in order to play golf leisurely for the rest of his life. The man is successful, earns millions of dollars, and at age 30 starts playing golf. He's shown that he's possesses reason, productivity and self esteem. He's planned his long term happiness, he's not lazy or a hedonist...he's not being selfless, he's selfishly making himself happy. What do you guy's think? In order for this example to be valid, we'll have to assume he doesn't want to be a professional golfer, or teach golf, or own a golf course, he just wants to play. He's not productive..but is he happy/egoistic? I'd say that I think this example is a bit too far fetched, and inches closer to belonging in the lifeboat category, because it doesn't seem likely to me that said man will not get tired of golf after 5 years, and want to move on to something else.

that was great, thank you. Very interesting.

Thanks to the people who've actually answered the question..so about %10 of the posters here. Ok JMS, here's a another more realistic scenario, if you like. An innocent/brainwashed man is working at a nuclear missile site in North Korea. He has tripped and is falling right onto the red button that launches nukes at Seoul. You know hundreds of thousands of people will die. You, JMS, happen to be a spy with a sniper gun, and are in the building. Do you shoot this innocent man, knocking his body away from the button and to the floor, preventing the launch sequence? On the one hand, you are killing an innocent man. On the other hand, you are saving hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. I'm asking these preposterous questions because I'm interested to see what parts of utilitarian ideas are rational, even if most of it is bunk.

It's kind of amusing to me how many people explained that the question was absurd. I'm working on a time machine, then I'll have the last laugh.

I think it would be a fair use of force. It is provoked. It's sort of like a death penalty, assuming you know that the baby was going to grow up to be Hitler.

That makes the question too easy. The question is one life, or millions.

I doubt whether any other German politicians would be as evil or destructive as Hitler. So you wouldn't kill the infant Hitler? Are you willing to take that risk?

You're doing exactly what I asked people not to do. What do you think of the principle behind this scenario? We are assuming here that you know for sure he will kill millions.