Dante

So then reply with the evidence from ubiquitous genes, endogenous retroviruses, transposons, and redundant pseudogenes. That is all evidence specifically for common descent, not just things changing. All those things provide evidence to say that humans and other species have common ancestors. It doesn't take any faith at all.

Summing someone up as a fundamentally rational or fundamentally irrational person takes a lot more than just knowing whether they believe in God.

Peer review is certainly a good characteristic in maintaining high standards in a rigorous journal, but it's not going to convince someone who thinks that everyone involved in a field is simply a religious devotee of 'evolutionism' or some such garbage. I'd stick to the evidence. Don't talk about what 'scientists' have been wrong about in the past, it's not relevant to the debate today. Ask for concrete examples of irreducible complexity, and then refute them (refutations are easily accessible for all examples that I have seen). Or present concrete and compelling pieces of evidence for common descent. I used to be a pretty frequent participant in online evolution debates years ago, so I wrote up a few short pieces of evidence and saved them; use them if you want. In general, www.talkorigins.org is a great reference for evidence for evolution, and it heavily cites from rigorous scientific literature.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon entry for sacrifice fleshes out what the concept refers to in Objectivist ethical arguments, that should help you out. We're not talking about opportunity cost when we speak of sacrifice. As to the do-gooders, it depends on whether their value for giving to others is rational or not. If you give because you enjoy seeing other people succeed, or you have particular empathy for someone's situation, or out of general benevolence those are all rationally justifiable reasons for giving. If you give simply because that's what it takes to be a good person, because that's what you've been told all your life and you've never really asked why, that's an irrational basis. I'm sure that person would still feel good about themselves for living up to their moral code, but their errors about the fundamental requirements of being a good person will be a hindrance to their life.

Hmmm I haven't had one in quite a while.

I agree. Most moral systems that you'll find people adhering to are a mix of altruistic and egoistic principles. The altruistic elements in such a system set that morality against the life and interests of the actor, and to the extent that the person follows those altruistic elements, they will frustrate the achievement of their own personal happiness. In order to untangle these, it is essential to understand the core of altruism and its full implications, even though this form of pure altruism is almost never advocated or practiced.

I think it would be viewed as little more than a 'tax haven' by our government, and they would want to annex it under the guise of closing a tax loophole.

The first sentence in the first link is "As long as acts of kindness don't become obligatory or overwhelming, they can enrich the giver and the whole community." But philosophical altruism, the kind that we're talking about here, is precisely a code where such acts are morally obligatory. They're not studying the same thing we're criticizing.

The ultimate perceptual data that the argument is based on are the observations needed to form the relevant concepts, like 'value,' 'altruism,' and 'happiness.' The core of the argument is the following: The only way to construct a value structure that completely consistent, without inner contradictions and clashing values, is with one's own life and happiness as the core. All of one's values, from one's career, to one's personal relationships, to charitable involvements should be integrated and structured with reference to this fundamental value. The core of altruism, as Ayn Rand argued, is self-denial, elevating the values of others above one's own personal values (literally, 'other-ism'). No one can consistently practice an altruistic code that makes no reference whatsoever to personal needs without dying quickly, so the argument here isn't about consistent altruists. The argument is that people who incorporate elements of altruism into their own moral code will construct a value structure which is inconsistent, which is incapable of being realized because contradictions cannot exist in reality. Without a single fundamental value to act as a reference and barometer, clashes in values cannot be resolved properly, and an attempt to live by such a moral code results in failure and frustration. If we look at happiness as the emotion consequent to achieving one's values in reality, then for a person with an inconsistent moral code, it is not possible to fully realize one's values, and consequently there are always elements of failure mixed in with one's successes. Some kind of happiness is still possible for such a person, of course, but not total happiness without a trace of failure to realize values. The empirical refutation of this argument would be pointing to an error in forming the concepts and premises involved in the above deduction; showing that value or altruism or happiness is improperly conceived by the argument.

I disagree strongly. The comparison that I would make is that of city and county police jurisdictions. A city's police force is funded for a single reason: to protect the rights of individuals within that city. They do not have jurisdiction outside of that region, and they shouldn't. To say that such an entity shouldn't step outside of its bounds is not to say that people in the next county over don't deserve rights, but rather that a different body is supposed to be protecting them, and keeping jurisdiction clear is vitally important to the rule of law. You can argue that the borders are arbitrary, and that's true, but not really a refutation. We still need clear lines of jurisdiction and responsibilities in order for rights enforcement to work, even if we have to arbitrarily draw such lines. The fact is, our country's military exists to protect people within the borders of this country from foreign attack. The issue is slightly complicated by the question of U.S. citizens in other countries, and whose job it is to protect them exactly, but one thing is sure: our national military is not the world police, and it shouldn't be.

This is not at all what Ayn Rand meant by altruism. It is not the same thing as goodwill or benevolence. Other people can indeed be great values to an individual, and opening oneself up to those opportunities is obviously conducive to their prospects for happiness and fulfillment. I think you need to reexamine the core of 'altruism' as intended by the people making this claim, and decide whether that fundamental core is compatible or not with human happiness.

Objectivism gives one a wider moral context within which to make decisions about one's career. For Objectivists, the goal in deciding on a career should be to further one's life and happiness, which is very similar to the New-Age notion that you're describing. However, Objectivist moral principles also give limitations on what types of careers are objectively rational and life-furthering, and which are not. For example, if someone decided that what would make them happiest would be a career as a con-man, the general sentiment of "do what makes you happy" would have nothing negative to say about that choice. However, Objectivist principles (e.g. the trader principle in this case) demonstrate that such a career is not compatible with one's pursuit of happiness and fulfillment. In general, happiness should be the guiding purpose of one's actions for an Objectivist, but there are more specific principles governing how to go about attaining it than are provided by the hedonistic, New-Age 'follow your heart' sentiment.

But isn't communication with the audience inherent in the attempt of self-expression? Any form of communication involves both the artist and the audience, and recognizing this doesn't require altering the core of what one is trying to convey, but it does require taking a generic audience into account when composing and playing. Isn't that part of learning to be a musician, is learning what notes, chords, and progressions tend to evoke what emotions in people, so that the artist can effectively communicate a tone or tap into an emotion? I'm not saying musicians should be overly concerned with whether a particular person or group of people 'gets them' or 'doesn't get them,' but they should be concerned with whether what they're trying to convey is intelligible. I could be way off here, I'm not a musician by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think this kind of 'taking a generic human audience into account' is incompatible with being an independent-spirited musician.

The gender of the people involved? The fact that they modernized cars and trains? These are non-essentials that have little to nothing to do with making an effective film version of Atlas Shrugged.

On the subject of the OP, I think that there is a wide difference between the level of understanding needed to live by Objectivism, correctly applying principles to one's own life, and the level of understanding needed to defend its principles in, say, a rigorous academic setting. Clearly, doing the latter requires an intricate grasp of the nuances of the philosophy as well as the wider context of academic philosophy, and this is the role filled by professional Objectivist philosophers. This level of understanding is probably outside of the reach of most people, simply because it takes years of studying, thinking, and writing, and if you have a career that is not philosophy you simply don't have the time. This is a positive aspect of Objectivism, that it can hold its own in the most rigorous and in-depth academic discussions when it is properly defended by a knowledgeable individual. The level of understanding required to comprehend the principles of Objectivism, ground them in the facts of reality, and apply them to one's life is attainable by anyone who is mentally healthy.

I think you should clarify that by "future taxation" you're referring to borrowing; it jumped out at me when you said that the only way to finance public works was by taxation or printing money, because the most common list that I see of exhaustive ways for the government to finance something is taxation, borrowing, or printing money. I think you're including it via future taxation, but that could be clarified. Also, I think you overuse quotation marks in a few spots. Overall, though, I think it's a very good article.

Objectivism makes no claims about insanity apart from upholding the root validity of sense perception and whatnot. Ayn Rand may have expressed her opinion on the subject, although I haven't encountered it yet, but Objectivism proper has nothing to say on it.

Certainly those kinds of people are physically capable of thinking in the widest abstract terms, they are just habitualized not to. Any habit can be broken. And yes, that is a forfeiture of cognitive independence. It's not second-handed to change your behavior even if you don't yet fully understand the principles underlying the change, but to not attempt to understand at all, opting instead to imitate others blindly, that is turning your thinking over to others.

Here is an article entitled "Ayn Rand and the Metaphysics of Kant," delivered at an Ayn Rand Society meeting in 1992 by George Walsh. It's fairly lengthy and very methodical in illustrating the similarities and differences in Objectivist and Kantian metaphysics.

If you haven't been following the riots all that closely, Wikipedia has a fairly detailed summary of the events precipitating the riots and the course and progress of the violence. Additionally, here is a good map tracking violent incidents over time in the past 4 days.

Except the bolding here is in the wrong place... So close...

Of course we have a nature, and Ayn Rand never denied this. I suggest you read the whole thread; Pinker's book was brought up in post #10 and was responded to by David Odden and Grames. To quote from earlier in the thread:

The products of his that I've been told are of particularly high quality (by people whose opinions I respect) are his lectures Understanding Objectivism and Objectivism through Induction. Unfortunately, I do not have firsthand experience with either, as they are prohibitively expensive, but Understanding Objectivism is slated to be released in book form next year, which I am greatly looking forward to.

The main concern here is whether any evidence can be offered that Rand actually designated Peikoff as her intellectual heir, as he claims. Backing up one's claims is (or should be) routine for any academic or intellectual, and in general the same would be asked of Objectivist experts in a formal academic discussion setting. I therefore fail to understand why this attitude by forum-goers would keep any experts away. Now, if all he means by intellectual heir is what softwareNerd takes from it, an intellectual who follows in the tradition of Rand and builds on her work, then the claim is backed up by the books, articles, and lectures that he has produced. However, this would not seem to give him an exclusivity on this title in any way, and in fact I could think of several others who would also qualify based on the work they have produced.

Her books are, but not her philosophy. It's ridiculous to attempt to put any sort of monopoly on her philosophy beyond her explicit writings and statements.