Castle

I'm a layman in subjects of this nature, but upon reading the link you provided this does not seem to be the same fallacy. He is not calling into question your motives "I wonder why you want guns to be readily available?" seems more like what you linked to. You didn't specifically state it, but it sounds like this person is arguing for gun control. If so, here is a problem I see. The assertion that guns might end up in the wrong hands requires omniscience for anything to be allowed. Once you begin abrogating rights on the basis of what people might do there is no end. You can't possibly know everyone's intent or motivations. Knives are dangerous. Pesticides are dangerous. Many sporting goods are dangerous. How can we know they aren't going to wind up in the wrong hands? There is an unspoken premise here that ill intent is widespread within the human race. It treats evil as the norm, not an anomaly.

I'm about halfway through "Return of the Primitive". Its pretty good so far.

By advisor I mean you have a relationship where your input is requested and valued AND you desire to give it. You do not have an obligation to give someone advice, nor is it your business unless concern for her affairs and guiding her to better action is part of your relationship with this person. You didn't mention the context of your friendship so I didn't want to give a blanket statement when someone else's affairs aren't necessarily your's to guide. By token I mean using this child as though it is an object to signify that she possesses some sort of virtue or status. Similar to the way many famous people use foreign adoptions. This is a human being that she will be entering into the most personal and sensitive of relationships with, not a "certificate of goodness", a showpiece, or a talking point for praise. A college degree is a token you can point to indicating you put in the work and have the indicated knowledge. A quarter is a token signifying value. You are describing this as though she expects to present this vulnerable person as a token of her virtue, for the express purpose of garnering praise . Not to overuse the applying fictional character traits, but the behavior you describe feels oddly similar to Keating in that she seems to be chronically focused toward the opinions of a nebulous "them". From the limited information given it seems this isn't even a desire for validation from others, because yourself and her boyfriend are "others" and apparently your opinions of her are pretty irrelevant when weighed against the crowd. As to the rational or irrational, in addition to considering the appropriateness of even attempting to sway someone, it may be helpful to do an assessment of whether this person is rational or not, which may be tough since you are emotionally tied to her. Its important though because you will never be able to sway an irrational person via rational argument, probably not even by presenting obvious negative consequences. Will it ever be profitable to present an opinion when she believes the opinions of others hold much more weight? Consider doing a little relationship triage. It may be time to judge and act on your judgement. How does this person fit into your goals and hierarchy of values? Is the sole appeal of this friendship shallow recreational interests and emotional connection based on habit? Depending on your answers, and a wealth of information only you know, it may be time to ask how much is gained by attempting to prevent the probable disaster you're describing.

I would agree. Although a criminal earning some money to cover costs and reimburse victims seems reasonable to me, not in the way described, which is as a resource to be mined or refined. This ties into my statement about the punishment needing to be reasonable. Perhaps as a series of programs which allow certain inmates to make money and pay their debts, which would then be taken into account in probation/parole proceedings. Rehabilitation is not a legitimate function of civil protection as far as I know, and I haven't seen anything in my Objectivist reading that states such. The only conceivable situation that even seems similar to what you are describing would be a verified case of severe mental illness. The idea that private should do this is insane. The folly of thinking any legitimate function of government being privatized is beneficial is covered pretty well in the literature. I also know of no instance where the principle of total forfeiture of rights for any infraction is espoused within Objectivism.

Well, if you're the advisor I would discourage if you believe this kid is a token. Also, a 19 year old likely has nowhere near the experience or development to make a decision like that. Honestly, I would probably tell a friend like this to stop talking about it please, as her motivation seems toxic and disgusted me. I would also evaluate why exactly this person was considered a friend.

For the class, suggest that for the rest of the semester points be deducted from the high grades and added to the low grades until all grades are as close to minimum passing grade as possible. The high scorers can keep what is left, but if no one gets a passing grade due to extremely low scores they have to accept it. Watch for reactions. Explain that the high scorers didn't create their grades, they merely claimed more of the total grade points that were always available to everyone, making it unfair that they got more points just because of ability, hard work, or natural advantages. If they protest that our system isn't like that, suggest a progressive taxation of grades. 90-100 loses 8 points, 80-90 loses 6, 70-80 loses 4, 60-70 lose 2, scores below that gain 20 points with a maximum grade of 60, subtract 5 points from the combined total for government administration of the program, subtract 2 points from the combined total for fraud. For your grandmother, maybe detail how many of the hardships of her youth were created or made drastically worse via government intervention. You might want to gently explain that government regulation or help has nothing to do with those "willing" to help. There will always be people in any community willing to help others they value. "Willing" goes out the window the minute a gun is involved, and that doesn't change if you never see the robbery that puts food in your mouth. Its also not immoral to survive in a system you have no choice but to participate in, with the gun trained on everyone.

I play, although I'm currently on hiatus. I was with Taggart Transdimensional and was throughly disappointed with the organization. Not that they're bad guys, its just wasn't worth the time to sit in a billionaires club and never embark on significant joint ventures or mutually beneficial trades.

The only thing I would disagree with is the assertion that a rights violator forfeits all of their rights. The response must be reasonable. To summarily execute a thief upon conviction is not a reasonable response. Restriction of freedom and property for a period of time is, as these are what he took and used in the commission of the crime. The term "throw a criminal away" directly implies that the criminal is broken property of society. A criminal isn't thrown away, they are held at bay.

You may want to rethink you assessment regarding weed being immoral all the time. The context given was in moderation, not full on stoned off your ass. I see this as no different than drinking in moderation. I don't smoke weed, nor would I say its a particularly wise practice, but I rarely drink either. One can destroy consciousness with all kinds of substances that are not only pleasurable in moderation, but are necessary in moderation. Weed isn't one of the necessary things, but it seems easily possible to achieve values and thrive if it is used moderately, as it is possible to drink socially. Peikoff has stated one of his favorite foods is vodka, and I seriously doubt he has been destroying his consciousness. Just because man's purpose is not pleasure doesn't mean that an action taken in moderation for the sole purpose of pleasure is immoral. Recreation is not hedonism.

Sadly the new album is not up to par in my opinion.

The point you are missing is that it is completely impossible for what you are describing to happen. If by some fiat the magical unicorn gave all of the wealth to 100 people the situation would quickly resolve itself. For one, your conception of what wealth is is flawed in the extreme. Wealth is not something we go out into the jungle and find, its something we create. So right there its impossible, people would immediately begin producing the things they need and improving their methods. This would drive trade. New wealth would be created. Also, you have these 100 people with "all" the wealth. How do they survive? They sit on the wealth and go farm turnips in the backyard? Dig a well? They would need things done, lots of things. Trade. Saying 100 people control all the wealth is like saying there would only be 100 productive people on the planet. An earlier assertion of yours needs to be addressed as well, apologies if it already has. Money that is hoarded or inherited doesn't just "sit" in the bank doing nothing. Car loans? Business loans? Real estate loans? Loans to pay for promising research? Credit lines to meet payroll when the cycle of a business doesn't seamlessly mesh with pay cycles? Where do you think this money comes from? It comes from the aggregate deposits of the middle class as well as deposits of the upper class. The funds of the idle rich are not idle. It can't be in a free market if the rich person desires to stay that way. This is one of the great strengths of capitalism and one of the reasons that taxation and arbitrary regulation are so dangerous. To paraphrase Rand, you are consuming the nation's seed stock. With regulation you are also salting the field. Let me be the first to say thank you to the idle rich. Either your money will come my way in the form of loans I couldn't get otherwise or you'll make bad choices and you will lose control of it.

Metallica instrumental cover of a score from "The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly". Maybe a little Dethklok mixed in there, for comedy relief and good rhythm.

I think your conclusion is basically correct, but for one error. The john and prostitute do in fact find someone who shares their values together. An extremely low valuation of people as a disposable means to an end.

Regarding the OP, I take a slightly different position. Its not anyone's business what your motivation is. You aren't obligated to disclose it nor are you obligated to correct other's misconceptions. I can see it being necessary to prevent undue influence to your child, since its almost inevitable that someone will expose her to the nonsense of others. Even then I wouldn't think much more would be required than "We aren't raising our child to feel that she was a nameless face plucked from the lottery we held to do our part for the world. We chose her because we personaly found value in this person. We do not wish her to view herself as a lucky victim, nor us as virtuous saviors. Do not expose my child to what you are saying." As to the friend adopting a Chinese girl, if you are in a context where it is appropriate to offer your opinion, it might be helpful to straight out ask if she wants a child, to wear the white hat, or just a cute token. I would like to add that removing someone you don't know from a bad situation is not necessarily altruistic. It seems to me that one can hold values that support such an action besides "duty" or belief that sacrifice for others is a moral imperative. Sometimes I give a bum a dollar if it genuinely appears to be someone who just got some bad circumstances or was victimized on the sole basis that a human being has potential value and this human being doesn't appear to have done it to himself. I would likely attempt some form of defense for a victim of violence. This would be assuming I believed I could do so without sacrificing any of my other values. Part of my perfect world is the irrelevance of capricious fortune and impotence of the evil of initiation of violence. I act to make it so when it doesn't impact more important goals and values.

Nah, next year its going to be me. I plan on saying "Nuclear war is super duper bad" for 24 whole days this year. Thats double what Obama did. Go ahead and engrave the plaque, nobel prize committee.

Its all been stated pretty clearly, but I'll point two things out. The answer to the arbitrary and nonsense question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is not answered by "God" or "the divine", which is what is being implied. The answer to a ridiculous arbitrary nonsense question isn't "An all-powerful force I can't define or understand and that doesn't exist". It doesn't have an answer. There is a point where you have to ask why you're even entertaining debate with someone throwing this out. If they feel compelled to convert you why are you even participating. If you're doing it because you feel the need to convert them, why should you?

There is also the deliberate insertion of uncertainty into the market by the government. It becomes difficult to plan far into the future, even if you're motivated and skilled at it, when antitrust law has no clear declaration of what actually is illegal and you never know when your industry will be target by politicians crusading against imaginary injustices to pander for a vote.

There is also the factor that a great deal of schooling is not at all focused on teaching business leaders to plan or even think that long term. To do so you have to have confidence in yourself, the world you're operating in, and cause and effect. Thats not exactly paramount in the current paradigm. This seems to be accelerating as time goes on, too.

It does take a lot of effort. Try to remember that you don't have to climb Mt. Everest in a day. Don't discount the notion that you are partly just a cerebral type guy. I have noticed that there is kind of a momentum to integrating knowledge, at least for me. It becomes habitual, then part of my sense of life. I find I ask myself "What am I doing right now and why?" a lot more. Its a huge jump when it becomes clear in the beginning that everything can be understood. A lot of people operate on exactly the opposite principle.

Through the years I can say I've pretty consistently acted to search for understanding of the world around me, either through philosophy or religion before I concluded it was a dead end path. A tenacious desire to attain independence is another long standing theme. Achievement in multiple fields is a third.

The wall street journal is doing a poll right now on if Obama should have the award. I just voted. It is at 80.1% NO.

I think that Michael is right except for the part where this is delegation. Passing it to you is delegation. Passing it out of the department is just obfuscation. You see the problem that "X = incorrect". He sees the problem as "There is a problem within my sphere of influence". On a humorous note. My answer to "When you get stuck with every problem in the office, don't look to me for help." is "When I've solved every problem in the office, don't look to me for a job."

Peikoff has addressed masterbation. It actually comes up all the time in the podcasts, with the answer being pretty close to what is written above. Rand did write specifically regarding sex and it's also covered in Peikoff's work. I don't have my books on hand but iirc correctly a summary would be that sex is a powerful physical expression of your valuation of another person. Again, going from memory here, but I believe Rand's position was that voluntary pornography should not be prohibited based on individual rights, but that it reflected a very base and degraded sense of life. I seem to remember this being similar to her stance on promiscuity.

I am new to this forum as well, but welcome to the forum. Regarding your initial question I would suggest all of the Ayn Rand non-fiction as well as Leonard Peikoff's "Philosophy of Ayn Rand". I found Peikoff's work particularly helpful, and his podcast is worth a listen as well. In my limited experience the issue of the Libertarian party's incompatibility with Objectivism is rooted in it's lack of grounding principles. They begin with a floating "freedom is good, government is bad" premise that leaves lots of room for patently destructive and evil ideologies to take root, as well as making impossible to present a coherent defense of liberty. Objectivism is a grounded philosophy and is quite aggressive to boot. There are fundamental incompatibilities. I will offer a word of warning, of a sort. In my experience once you begin to seriously explore Objectivism you will likely find yourself involved in a struggle. You have a lifetime of learning and habitual thinking along certain lines. Beneath that you have a particular sense of life. Objectivism will challenge all of this, and there can only be one victor in the end. This is a difficult philosophy to practice. Good luck. I'll see you on the forums. I hope my opinions were informative.

Where I am it's morning. So, good morning. I'm obviously new to this forum, but not to forums in general. I've been studying and practicing Objectivism seriously for approximately 2 years. That was basically immediately after my first introduction to the philosophy, which was not suprising as I had been seeking principles that made sense for a long time. I was in Afghanistan at the time, an experience I don't regret. Much of my understanding was gained on the ground so to speak, before I found a system to integrate it all with. That's not to say I haven't engaged in study, I most certainly have, but if "A picture is worth a thousand words" I had seen volumes before a chance encounter with Objectivism set me on the trail of integrating it all into a explict philosophy. Before that there was just sense of life and rigorous sifting through systems looking for truths that made sense. You'll see a lot more of me here if it's a productive forum. I like to learn and debate, which is not abundant in my physical area. I look forward to participating here. Posted via iPhone, apologies for any formatting that gets mangled on the way.