TLD

1. Virtually all are too busy with other endeavors to participate. Efforts to reach non-Obj.s are limited to specific programs, and the likes of ARI and OS reach Obj.ists in their own way. 2. Some, like HB, are very selective in how and to what extent they communicate and have their own forums. 3. This forum, quite frankly, is lacking sophistication. As I have noted on several occasions, participants do not stick to topic, mis-apply Obj.ist principles, ask too many questions without due diligence, etc. 4. This is not the only alternative outlet.

As was Rand herself. Note this recent quote by Don Watkins (ARI) which also implicitly addresses all the comments about Libertarians: "In today’s world, to be selective about one’s allies is to invite accusations of dogmatism. But it was precisely Rand’s lack of dogmatism—her conviction that only rational, persuasive arguments can change the world—that made her so careful about avoiding confusion in making the case for capitalism."

Is this an attempt to feel better about Obj.ism? You are still not distinguishing between the philosophy and the "company" promoting it - which I agree with others is not dogmatic. All the value is in the philosophy; accept it or not.

There is nothing wrong with debt if you can handle it; and it can help with tax and family planning. Not only is that not illogical, but it is not really a philosophical question. I think you are ignoring the fact that such borrowing is a free exchange between you and a bank - both win.

There is a difference not being noted here. Obj.ism is a philosophy; Brook and others speak in philosophical terms; and as such, anarchists are immoral. The "Mises people" use Obj.ism as it is appropriate, but Obj.ists can't acknowledge that they are fundamentally correct in many of their views. It does not bother me if ARI is not as public, etc: the philosophy is primarily for the individual and all Obj.ist individuals can spread the principles more than ARI can.

Sounds like a lot of rationalization going on to me. Objectivism, with a capital "O", is Rand's philosophy - period. And being an Obj.ist is accepting and living by her philosophyical principles - period. "Identifying the method..." is clearly not enough. What more needs to be said here?

If there is some dogmatism in the "movement", there isn't in the philosophy, per se. Your judgment should be based on the latter. The name is a convenience and "evolution" is not a philosophy that needs a name. Re Rand's dealings with close friends, that too should not affect your judgment of the philosophy. Perhaps you are unaware of the true differences between Libertarianism and Obj.ism; e.g. Lib. does not fully accept Obj.ism's morality. To Brook and others, it does not matter how much closer Paul is to Obj.ism than other candidates when one is talking philosophically (vs. purely politically). Again, nothing here to question Obj.ism about. So to the extent that you let such subjective factors deter you from Objectivism, then you are correct to not call yourself an Obj.ist and you need not ask the original question. But if you can get past them and accept Obj.ist principles fully, then you should feel comfortable with the title.

So he accused you but he will do business if you admit guilt. He should not want to do business with you if he believes that. That suggests to me that he needs you, can't say that, and wants you to need him. To such a person, I would say that you cannot accept guilt for his error and will do business if he can simply accept the truth. If he does not agree, then he does not need you badly enough and you would likely run into further problems with him if you sacrificed your prinicple and did it his way. If you need his business so badly that you are willing to concede, then doing the latter could be considered an act of self-defense; you would be insincere of course and would have to accept that.

What does it take for an Obj.ist to reject part of it? He would have to find something irrational about it, or he would have to be less than a full Obj.ist in the first place. Making an error and rejecting is not having been an Obj.ist. No, those who understand Obj.ism can certainly make mistakes. But those who correctly call themselves Obj.ists - i.e. have fully integrated it and accept it - will not likely make Epis errors of significance (where they contradict Obj.ism's fundamentals). If they do and recognize them, then they will correct their thinking. If they do and don't recognize them, then they still have not rejected Obj.ism. I did not say "lie". You said he could be "wrong" and I responded with "falsely claim", meaning wrong in claiming when he was not truly an Obj.ist. "Someone can understand Objectivism but not be an Objectivist, either because they left, or they never were one in the first place. You apparently are so unwilling to even entertain this possibility that you have to misinterpret everything I have said to "make sense of" it." I already agreed with your first part; but you refuse to acknowledge that that is not equiv. to "understand and accept." and that the latter is what an Obj.ist does. "(The OP) did not indicate in asking the question that he wanted to limit its scope to people who had rational reasons for leaving." But I was saying that an Obj.ist cannot have irrational reasons; therefore it was implied. "You believe Objectivists are infallible." Not at all. But how can they be true Obj.ists and be making irrational decisions to leave Obj.ism? I will stop here. Steve, you who are not attempting to understand my points; I'm glad some others did show some understanding. You have not answered the key questions or presented an example that is valid that refutes my claim; I have addressed the invalid ones. And in your frustration. you get personal with nasty comments. Enough.

I am going to resspond to a mix of comments. "Now he may be WRONG in his reasons for being a former Objectivist, I think so, at any rate. But to simply claim that he cannot have been an Objectivist in the first place is patently absurd." You are saying that one can falsely claim to be an Obj.ist (e.g. do so without valid reasoning) and then say he was an Obj.ist before he abandoned it. Now that is absurd. "There was no indication that the reason for leaving had to be rational. Just that it had to be an O-ist who left." So an Obj.ist is one who would use rational reasons for leaving? Think about that a bit.... Until someone find something fundamentally wrong with Obj.ism, that can't happen. Therefore he would be acting irrationally and/or not be an Obj.ist. "Your claim is that no one who ever understood it can possibly decide to leave. You didn't exclude the possibility that someone formerly rightly supporting Objectivism could make a wrong decision and leave." No, I said understood as was a true Obj.ist. How could he rightly support..., make a wrong decision, leave, and say he was previously a true Obj.ist? Not logical. if you mean he thought he "rightly supported" but did not in fact do so, then ok. In the case of Smith, no one has denied the fact that he has been a long-term Libertarian; therefore, he necessarily was never a true Obj.ist. If he understood and accepted (part of the real question here) Obj.ism, why would he then discount Obj.ist principles? It had to be that he errored. But how can an Obj.ist error since he has to consistently use reason and be rational, and given that Obj.ism does not have known fundamental errors? "If someone had a rational reason to leave Objectivism, then Objectivism would no longer be a philosophy based on reason or rationality. If that person could present their reason and rationality in a convincing argument, it's rationality would convince all other rational Objectivists of its truth, and Objectivism would evolve." Correct! "More interesting question would be “What percentage of people exposed to Objectivist ideas come to a fully integrated understanding of Objectivism?” Unfortunately, that has to be a very small %. It is those who do fully integrate it who can properly call themselves Obj.ists and who have no reason to leave it. "How many Objectivists disagree to the point of questioning their status as an Objectivist, and later come to an understanding that lets them claim that they are an Objectivist once again?" This is an interesting question that raises another point: if you believe that you accept and follow Obj.ist principles prior to fully integrating it, I believe it appropriate to call yourself an Obj.ist. If upon full integration you decide you are not a true Obj.ist, then you cannot say in retrospect that you really were (a la Smith). So such people do not refute my initial premise. "TLD moved on to his still undefined distinction between “understand” and “accept”, thus moving the goalposts into la-la land." I should not have to define a distinction between "understand" and "accept" to this crowd. And to call oneself an Obj.ist, both have to exist. "I don't even think the reasons for abandoning Objectivism have to be rational, nor must they be correct. He wants to know the percentage of Objectivists who abandon it, for whatever reason.... The controversy erupted when someone claimed it was impossible for a "true" Objectivist to ever leave it.)" Maybe by now this person realizes the error is this quote. It is true that reasons can be irrational/incorrect. But a true Obj.ist would not use such reasons. This is the more important message here, not the issue of percentage.

No I didn't, just a play on words. Lighten up a little Steve. He is a Libertarian through and through; he never fully accepted Obj.ism and simply does not qualify. For the purpose of this thread, just focus on whether a complete Obj.ist can abandon it for a rational reason; and Smith is not rational in his counters to Obj.ism. That's a fact. I have known many "Obj.ists" who became Libertarians, and they all made the same errors and all could not properly hold the Obj.ist label. Therefore, no "example given and dismissed by you." This is for those who are not playing devils advocate and want to truly get my point. Unfortunately, the point has become less important than the realization here that many Obj.ists are too quick to rationalize to defend their positions because they have not fully grasped the principles. And that is not the "Pope" talking, thank you very much. Actually, it isn't completely different: abandoning Obj.ism due to such an error would be the 1 rational reason to so abandon. I excluded that due to lack of evidence.

Consistent adherence to the fundamental principles of Obj.ism. All Obj.ist should agree with that; ditto for the adherants of any other philsophy. Your ex. does not qualify, but good try.

Do you really think that one abandoning Obj.ism "gives a crap" about whether he was once an Obj.ist? Still no example.... It is sure easy denouncing a premise without having to present contrary evidence. I thought only non-Obj.ists do that. Maybe that is what I am dealing with here. Without an example I have requested, there is no need to further this discussion.

Talk about changing the context. There has been nothing presented for me to refuse to recognize; no ex. of a rational reason to reject Obj.ism. It is not about my judgment of someone being an Obj.ist. We are talking about someone who truly understands it, properly - by definition - calls himself an Obj.ist and lives by it; and then finds a rational explanation for rejecting (part or all of) it (thus becoming a non-Obj.ist). If the discussion is Brain Damage, why participate? Or why not provide some evidence that my premise is wrong? SapereAude at least recognized early on that my premise was essentially correct.

In all due respect, you are rationalizing to hold to your point. How can one stay an Obj.ist without choosing to stay? Your distinction is invalid. Sure, I could be run over by a car and become a vegetable instead of an Obj.ist too! Still no rational reason presented to refute my premise. And I'm called closed-minded (ND) for not yielding to arguments like this.

Still no rational reason to abandon. If wrong after "further investigation", then not understood in the first place. We were not talking about mere disagreement.

I did not say they are irrational for abandoning it, just never actually understood it well andaccepted it - lived by it. I agree to your point of context of knowledge; and you prove my point when saying that they did not integrate it well before abandoning it. BTW, I do not recall seeing anyone providing a rational reason to abandon Obj.ism once a true Obj.ist. No, Smith is not an example.

That is my point: to "stop being" is to "choose to stop being." If something outside your control "stops" you, that is outside this discussion. If circumstances make a person incapable of choosing, then he is "stopped from being." This discussion was never dealing with such situations. Remember the original question: "what % of Obj.s stay Obj.s...." Do you really think that was to count those who became disfunctional?!!!!!

No it is not! She is not the same person after the mental change. You can't drop the context of who she was and who she became. The Obj.ist became incapable of thinking rationally; she did not consciously change to be a non-Obj.ist.

I did not want to believe that you could conclude such. In your example, Person A became person B. Logic does not allow you to change the mental makeup of someone in order to refute an argument. Hypotheticals have to be rational to be meaningful.

Is that presented as an actual refutation of the premise being discussed?

Virtually yes - for a true Obj.ist. Clearly, this is a very principled point. Sure people change their mind, and I have seen professed Obj.ists do so. I can't see myself or any Obj.ist I currently know make such a change with today's context of knowledge.

You don't need to preach. To refute the Smith example, I only needed to make the first point re anarachy; and that should not require an analysis of Smith's argument. Re the 2nd point: Capitalism is a long way down the chain of concepts; and it is defined as a system with govt. monopoly of force. What is fundamental are the moral principles that lead to the conclusion that Capitalism is the proper system in a free society. It is a common error to accept Obj.ism but to assume that force should be eliminated altogether, thus anarchy. Smith called himself an Obj.ist in error.

Anarchy is not a rational substitute for limited government. Nor is that a fundamental principle of Obj.ism on which Smith refuted and changed.

In my original post: "If someone truly understands Obj.ism and can call himself an Obj.ist, there should be no reason - and he certainly would be applying reason - to change." Does that not sound like "understand and accept" to you? No, accepting in one's "heart" is certainly not accepting mentally. Yes, anyone who disagrees with Objectivist principles never fully understood and accepted (lived by) them. That is not to say that such a person might have once thought he U&A. What a non-Obj.ist needs to understand is that Obj.ism is a complete philosophy based on reason and rationality. Once understood, one would have to reject R&R to some extent to reject its principles.