Dante

The obvious aping of Christian religious services in the structure, the musical sing-alongs, etc is ridiculous. The lack of a more specific viewpoint than "atheism" is a crippling defect; as several people point out in the article, some particular ideology will undoubtedly surface for this particular church.

By far the most interesting part to me is the 'sermon' described in the article: "in his closing sermon, Jones speaks about how the death of his mother influenced his own spiritual journey and determination to get the most out of every second, aware that life is all too brief and nothing comes after it."

This type of gather does provide one potentially very valuable activity: sharing personal experiences of grappling with death and with life's big questions with other people who don't look to religion. This is particularly helpful for people who don't really have any other nonreligious people among their close friends. Much more so than simply celebrating that we're all enlightened atheists, or feeding into an atheist persecution complex, this kind of personal, nonreligious confrontation of the human experience could be very rewarding, it seems to me. Why it has to be on Sunday morning in a church format is baffling.

Relevant quote from Ayn Rand on how the two interact politically in America, from her Q&A:

I didn't know this forum was the right place to post speculative fan-fic.

And like their other powers, their power to police the border must be kept limited by the proper function of that power. In this case, stopping poor Mexican immigrants because they are coming and taking our jobs is an abuse of the government's control of the border, much like locking up nonviolent drug offenders is an abuse of the government's legitimate power to imprison criminals.

This casual assumption of yours that others on this forum aren't interested in the practical implications of Objectivism, or aren't interested in actually applying it to their own lives, is arrogant, presumptuous, and one of the reasons you're getting such negative feedback from your posts here.

So my question for you is this: what happens to the cost of servicing the 16 trillion dollar U.S. debt at that point? Currently, interest rates and yields are very low, which makes it easier to service the debt. In addition to this, the act of lowering interest rates involves the Federal Reserve buying up lots of government bonds, increasing demand, therefore increasing the price and lowering the yields (the cost of servicing these bonds). So what happens when one of the largest purchasers of U.S. bonds decides that it must not only stop buying government bonds, but turn around and start selling them itself? What happens when one of the Treasury's largest customers must become its competitor, to stave off high inflation?

From where I'm standing, at that point, with the Fed's previous demand for bonds gone, and in fact a larger supply of bonds, bond prices fall, yields go way up, and the cost of servicing our debt suddenly doesn't seem so insignificant. We need a plan for long-term restructuring of entitlements now, such that we can cut the debt burden before we are forced to by the sheer expense of the debt.

And like their other powers, their power to police the border must be kept limited by the proper function of that power. In this case, stopping poor Mexican immigrants because they are coming and taking our jobs is an abuse of the government's control of the border, much like locking up nonviolent drug offenders is an abuse of the government's legitimate power to imprison criminals.

Relevant quote from Ayn Rand on how the two interact politically in America, from her Q&A:

Relevant quote from Ayn Rand on how the two interact politically in America, from her Q&A:

The world would have been a much poorer place, with far less industrialization.
One can criticize people for taking on too much debt, but this is not the fault of debt. Analogously, one can criticize people for eating too much food, but this is not the fault of food. Done right, food and debt are values.

Properly, debt is capital that has been borrowed. Since most people earn for a certain number of years and are then unable to do so -- in retirement -- it makes sense to save capital that one may draw upon during the last few decades of one's life. It also makes sense to have this capital in a form that it continues to be productive. Debt is the mechanism for this. One lends capital to others and therefore gets back more than the original amount. it is a win win.

Excessive debt (like obesity) has been around for centuries. At some point, governments got into the game, subsidizing debt, thus making the problem worse. However, this does not change the underlying fact that debt -- done right -- is as essential to a modern economy as is fossil fuel.

Am I the only one who honestly doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the whole thing?

I obviously love Rand’s work. I love Branden’s work too as his material in TVOS and CTUI were some of my early favorites and his later work was solid too. TVAR is my go to source for looking up basic objectivism facts as a matter of fact. Their material stands on its own and can be judged on its own.

Perhaps it’s because I spent the 90’s reading all of their material oblivious to the whole mess, outside of a simple non-descript message in one of the books, and thus just kept reading without the baggage of the whole thing, but I don’t see it affecting their work. As for the affair, it sounds like two people had a passionate affair and not surprisingly when they broke up it was also passionate. Branden was young and apologized for his party while Rand was angry. That isn’t surprising since she is an older strong personality with the mind of the century. It most have been a real blow and hell have no fury of a women who feels scorned.

So I just look at the work and judge their ideas, since that is the value I get from them anyway.

Just my two cents.

This is a tricky topic, especially since most are incapable of maintaining rationality while speaking about it. In that sense, it reminds me of the abortion debate.

Generally speaking, gun control is totally ineffective. There is some evidence that it helps to reduce violent crime, but when you actually take a look at those studies, it is apparent that they haven't accounted for the other crime-conductive factors, such as poverty, mental health factors, education level, and even factors as banal as the temperature outside or population density (statistics demonstrate that violence increases the hotter, and more crowded, it gets).

There is also a pretty compelling moral case to be made against gun control: (1) as a human being, I have the right to defend myself against aggression, and that aggression frequently comes in the form of a gun; (2) applying punitive measures against people not convicted of a crime is immoral, and infringes greatly upon the vast majority of law-abiding citizens; (3) agents of state authority are allowed to carry guns, and yet state authority is the record holder for human rights abuses by far.

However, I have heard one compelling argument for gun control, and it is, interestingly enough, pretty utilitarian. Selective gun control in areas that have high gang activity works, not because it reduces the likelihood of violence, not because it decreases tensions, because it provides a pretext for removing particular elements from the street. In other words, certain boroughs of Chicago or New York or wherever would be declared "gun free zones," and police would focus on known or suspected gang members. This sort of policing has actually proven to reduce violent crime (I can source this by the way, although I haven't found an online source yet, so take it or leave it)... and yet I can't help but wonder how many innocent people have been targeted as a result, and how many of them are unable to improve their lives due to a criminal record. The moral implications of this policy are huge, and frankly, I am unwiling to trust the State with such authority outside a very narrow set of circumstances, and I'm not even sure what those circumstances are.

Two words for this, and the whole thrust of this thread: who cares?

This thread basically amounts to digging up obscure quotes from libertarian theorists to try to argue that they, personally, sympathized with some fascist regime or another. You start with the ridiculous bolded claim that "Unfortunately in every actual case of a respected economist arguing for radical capitalism, that economist also has sympathies with fascist dictatorships." You argue this from your sample size of three (which has since been whittled down to maybe one) and your uncritical reading of a singe Salon article, as it turns out. But these are not even your most significant errors.

This whole line of argument is fundamentally religious in its approach, and it shows the inability to focus on ideas rather than people. You try to take individual people (none of whom were actually Objectivists anyway) and attempt to discredit a philosophy by showing some quotes about their views on particular regimes. However, a philosophy does not stand or fall based on every single view of its advocates. That's a religion you're thinking of. For example, Jesus is claimed to have lived a sin-free life (which theologically is integral to whether or not he can save others), and therefore Christianity lives or dies based on whether every single word and action of his can be defended. Cults or governments centered around one person operate the same way. You seem to view systems of ideas through the same religious lens, but there's a problem; it doesn't work that way. Even if you had done your homework and gotten your facts right before starting this thread, it wouldn't matter one bit. You cannot discredit a system of ideas by pointing out flaws in the people that advocated them. So, I conclude with the same two words... who cares?

Quite easily. Ayn Rand strongly believed and argued that the ultimate driver of history is philosophy, not politics. No political system can survive for any extended period of time which is not supported by the intellectual, cultural, and philosophical trends of its people. Simply put, the prevailing philosophy of a populace leads, and politics follows. Capitalism cannot survive in a nation without a supporting philosophical base that is well-articulated and accepted as true by the people of that nation. This was precisely what she spent her life trying to create and promote. There is only one way to get a capitalist government in America, or any other country, and that starts with a cultural and intellectual acceptance of the foundations of capitalism, not a military coup.

I find it very unlikely that she simply didn't value or like her life that much, and thought this would be a good opportunity to just throw it away for little or no reason.

I find it much more likely that she took her responsibility (her chosen responsibility) as a guardian of these kids very seriously, and was willing to pay the ultimate price to preserve the integrity of that responsibility.

I think, particularly if you have kids whose safety you entrust to others every single day, that calling her a hero isn't a misuse of the term at all.

Maybe someone here can help me understand this. So one of the legislative proposals being tossed around by gun control advocates is the idea of banning high-capacity clips (e.g. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/273813-sensing-political-shift-pelosi-dems-call-for-ban-on-high-capacity-gun-clips). And it seems that the magic number that defines a high-capacity clip is... 10?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the sidearm most commonly used by police officers was a Glock 22, which comes standard with a 15-round clip. So this would mean, that if I wanted to carry a handgun, and went through all the certification to get a license and a concealed carry permit and everything, I wouldn't be able to choose the go-to weapon of the police? The magazine would be too large by 50%?

I get the rationale behind trying to ban large-capacity clips; advocates typically argue that really the only purpose for such a clip is to kill large numbers of people. However, when you set the cutoff at 10 bullets, this means you're now saying that police sidearms are equipped with clips whose only purpose would be to 'kill large numbers of people'?

Police officers clearly carry their sidearm to protect themselves and others in the case of a shootout, so (even granting the argument for gun control) how can gun-control advocates possibly say that a 15-round clip is an unreasonable thing for a private citizen to want?

I find it very unlikely that she simply didn't value or like her life that much, and thought this would be a good opportunity to just throw it away for little or no reason.

I find it much more likely that she took her responsibility (her chosen responsibility) as a guardian of these kids very seriously, and was willing to pay the ultimate price to preserve the integrity of that responsibility.

I think, particularly if you have kids whose safety you entrust to others every single day, that calling her a hero isn't a misuse of the term at all.

I find it very unlikely that she simply didn't value or like her life that much, and thought this would be a good opportunity to just throw it away for little or no reason.

I find it much more likely that she took her responsibility (her chosen responsibility) as a guardian of these kids very seriously, and was willing to pay the ultimate price to preserve the integrity of that responsibility.

I think, particularly if you have kids whose safety you entrust to others every single day, that calling her a hero isn't a misuse of the term at all.

I find it very unlikely that she simply didn't value or like her life that much, and thought this would be a good opportunity to just throw it away for little or no reason.

I find it much more likely that she took her responsibility (her chosen responsibility) as a guardian of these kids very seriously, and was willing to pay the ultimate price to preserve the integrity of that responsibility.

I think, particularly if you have kids whose safety you entrust to others every single day, that calling her a hero isn't a misuse of the term at all.

I find it very unlikely that she simply didn't value or like her life that much, and thought this would be a good opportunity to just throw it away for little or no reason.

I find it much more likely that she took her responsibility (her chosen responsibility) as a guardian of these kids very seriously, and was willing to pay the ultimate price to preserve the integrity of that responsibility.

I think, particularly if you have kids whose safety you entrust to others every single day, that calling her a hero isn't a misuse of the term at all.

Good replies by sNerd and Nicky. I'll only add a historical aside about how we ended up with health insurance that operates through our jobs and our employers, when it is so clearly a bad system. Following WWII there were a number of wage controls which prevented employers from competing for workers through wage increases. Thus, firms found a different way to compete for workers: by offering more lavish benefits packages, including health insurance. Eventually the wage controls were lifted, but at that point employer-managed health insurance was the status quo. Later, this system was entrenched with tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance making it much more expensive to purchase health care independently. All this to say, we're stuck in a bad system, and it's attributable mainly to the unintended consequences of past government controls.

There's a faulty premise here that it's vital to recognize when voicing opposition for policies such as this. Consider this quote: '"Work should be done at school, rather than at home,” in order to foster educational equality for those students who do not have support at home., he added.' The egalitarian rationalization present there is appealing to lots of people, precisely because of this faulty assumption.

The underlying premise is that if some of the children get an extra step up (here, support outside of home), then this is a bad thing for the kids that don't get it. The reasoning is that homework is only effective when paired with this support structure in the home, and if some kids don't have this support, they are made worse off by other kids having it. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. It relies on the premise that individuals' interests are fundamentally at odds with one another, that life is a zero sum game. Applied to this context, the underlying idea is that there are only a fixed number of jobs for highly educated people, and if the wealthy and middle-class kids take them all because they had better educational opportunities (here, support for their homework), there won't be any left for the underprivileged.

In actuality, people are made better off if those around them are well-educated. Education is not a zero sum game, it is a shining example of a situation where I'm made better off if the people around me get a quality education, even if I don't. In fact, this is the reasoning that most economists will give for why we publicly fund education, the fact that it has 'positive externalities.' The more educated people we have, the more new economic opportunities will be opened up for others. This is the fundamental argument that has to be made against policies like this, the idea that has to be corrected, and followers of Ayn Rand should be the first ones doing it.

..Breaking bad? How about the number one movie on the imdb? (And my personal favorite)

There's a faulty premise here that it's vital to recognize when voicing opposition for policies such as this. Consider this quote: '"Work should be done at school, rather than at home,” in order to foster educational equality for those students who do not have support at home., he added.' The egalitarian rationalization present there is appealing to lots of people, precisely because of this faulty assumption.

The underlying premise is that if some of the children get an extra step up (here, support outside of home), then this is a bad thing for the kids that don't get it. The reasoning is that homework is only effective when paired with this support structure in the home, and if some kids don't have this support, they are made worse off by other kids having it. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. It relies on the premise that individuals' interests are fundamentally at odds with one another, that life is a zero sum game. Applied to this context, the underlying idea is that there are only a fixed number of jobs for highly educated people, and if the wealthy and middle-class kids take them all because they had better educational opportunities (here, support for their homework), there won't be any left for the underprivileged.

In actuality, people are made better off if those around them are well-educated. Education is not a zero sum game, it is a shining example of a situation where I'm made better off if the people around me get a quality education, even if I don't. In fact, this is the reasoning that most economists will give for why we publicly fund education, the fact that it has 'positive externalities.' The more educated people we have, the more new economic opportunities will be opened up for others. This is the fundamental argument that has to be made against policies like this, the idea that has to be corrected, and followers of Ayn Rand should be the first ones doing it.

Why would there be any debate about that? Obviously they would go to the Eighth.