freestyle

That isn't even true for humans.

1.) Acquire as much accurate knowledge about the situation as possible -- and do so without evasion of facts 2.) Determine what action is necessary (if any) in your long-term rational self interest. 3.) Do that thing

It does not, necessarily, imply slaughter. Note the use of the term "the circularity of a definition". If the standard of the good is that which is good for society, it necessarily places what is good for the individual second (or sub-standard). So yes, IF slaughtering each other be deemed best for society (take your pick: food shortage, over population, ethnic cleansing), then yes - that philosophy DOES NOT ALLOW consideration for the individuals which may be slaughtered. When you speak of slaughtering "each other" being "not good", you are changing the standard of value back to "each other" --- which is what Rand was arguing for.

While I detest Michael Moore for his blatant dishonesty in all his "documentary" films, I don't find this hypocritical. Authoritarian statists want power for themselves and equate that directly with having and controlling money. With that money they tend to purchase political influence. Of course he wants more money. And he's not going to be bothered with whether or not he has legitimately earned it. He surely believes that he "deserves" it and the big/rich company he is suing does not. "Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it."

Also, it is amazing what chimps will learn if you feed them peanuts. :-)

Here's the video... The first time either Colorado or Wyoming comes up is at about the 2min mark. Then they come up a few more times after that. Boring video, I know, but you can see how quickly they can identify them. If I had the internet and the iPad when I was their age, I think I'd be about 10x smarter than I am now. :-/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7Wu1k1TSks

Typically the tests we've done have multiple choice answers (which they never look at anyway - and the 4 year old doesn't quite read yet). However, your question got me thinking so I did a test. On the first time, Colorado came up they got it (confidently). I asked how he could tell and he said he noticed "similarities"... HOWEVER, on further testing, they could NOT distinguish those two states with regularity -- I video recorded for a while to see those two states come up and they had strong guesses each time, but they were definitely guess. So, I took screen shots of the two and am letting them study the differences --- I'll test again later. :-)

Yes, I was going to mention that much of this has to do with the way the brain is used and developed. I'm constantly amazed at what my children can do in terms of instant recall and memorization. Both my 4 and 6 year old boys can instantly name US presidents in order starting from anywhere. Originally they learned through a song. They can do this with the US states too, and the older one has memorized the capitals. There's an iPad app called stack the states which has also caused them to be able to instantly recognize each state by its shape and size. In a race, they can call out the state capitals and name states based on their geographic shape faster than I can. It seems automatic and computer like. And I don't think this is either luck or genetics. I'm very interested in brain development and epistemology -- We feed their interests with as much accurate information and learning tools as we can creatively think of. I'm interested to see how much they retain long-term... One thing Ayn Rand said was that a child under the age of 6 cannot understand what it means to think. I've been teaching my kids about focus, concentration, awareness and consciousness as much as I can... To a large extent, that is the biggest challenge in my experience with my kids. The choice to focus doesn't appear to be something they are naturally inclined to, nor is it easy to do. However, when they do focus, they appear to be able to absorb more and faster than I can. ...as for the chimp brain, I think it is likely that pattern recognition is something that is of a higher survival importance... I'm just thinking about swinging through trees, identifying what you can grab and what you can't -- being aware of potential predators. That would be my hypothesis as to why their brain's may be "better wired" (i.e. have been developed) to excel at the particular test in the video than an average adult human's.

I think I understand the point you're making, but what would then be defined as Religion-"based" values? If they are derived from reason, they could correctly be considered reason-based values - Right? I still like how Rand puts it in her Q&A with Playboy in 1964. "...You must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very—how should I say it?—dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith."

My question was not an attempt to suggest how you ought to feel. The example you gave in the first post suggested (as I read it) that since someone has a job of cleaning up trash, perhaps it is neutral or positive to contribute to the necessity of that position in the broader labor market. I can reject that argument, but instead I was just wondering if you had a clearly positive reason in mind for why it is good to litter. (My guess was that it may be emotion based and not logic based.) Maybe, but tripping on your crap and breaking your neck (or being liable for it happening to someone else) is a pretty good reason too. So are reasons like, ants, smell, aesthetics...

Is there an impulse to litter, and if so, how does that make you feel? Generally, it is self evident that it is not ideal to throw your crap all over the ground.

I would have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly challenge this.

If you could Photoshop his hand in my pocket, I'd really be impressed.

Nice looking website... The facebook page has some production stills in there too. The production values look pretty darn good. It is tough to make a good movie though (even for the most experienced filmmakers). A lot has to come together just right. Making Atlas Shrugged right is no small task. It would be very nice to see it done well.

I know my original post got ignored but I'll try it again. Take the hypothetical scenario where it can be scientifically determined whether or not a person will CHOOSE to press a button in a controlled experiment. Let it also be assumed that the calculation includes the data that the person will be told in advance the outcome. (i.e. It is understood and assumed that the subject will have foreknowledge of what he is determined to do) The determinist is stuck here. He has to argue that either: A) The human will be unable to defy a scientifically determined result. (deny the self evident) B.) Forever explain away (unscientifically) the "margin of error". (deny determinism) Which is it?

As I see it, the problem with the law is that its intent is not strictly to protect individual rights. One would have a hard time objectively justifying a law where the premise of the law is "giving" chances to criminals to commit crimes against innocent people. Conversely, the opposite way of looking at it is just as problematic from an objective standpoint. How does it protect the rights of individuals to broadly classify crimes and pick the arbitrary number 3 as the point of mandatory removal from society?

Wow - I just happened to read this at a book store. It is easily the most NON-objective thing I've ever read in a book containing "dictionary" in the title. Here are two screen grabs from the book cover and the entry in question. Wow, just wow ---

... says the authoritarian dictator. It is no surprise that the *voluntary* exchange of ideas was never going to suffice for you. The concession post containing "I concede nothing" was a nice final touch.

What kind of mind is unable to grasp the self evident? Maybe the capacity for reason is undeveloped so, in essence, they have *no choice*? ;-) Solve this riddle: In the future, the determinist will develop a machine that can calculate with perfect accuracy a human's "choice" in a controlled test. (press the button or do not press it) It includes in it's calculation that the subject will be told of his pre-determined "choice". -- So, the determinist would have you believe that the human will be a helpless automoton and have no power to disobey the pre-determined edict of action. PS- They already have created this machine, but it can't even get the accuracy part right yet. (let alone allow a subject foreknowledge of the determined result)

This was one of my favorite interviews I've seen... (I still want to see the Carson interviews... I've only read transcripts, but those appeared to be good too). Snyder doesn't seem to be trying to put her on the defensive (the way Mike Wallace and Donahue did). Snyder was asking questions and allowing her time to respond.

Sign on her fence solves the problem: "Please be advised that beyond this fence lies private property. Do not trespass. Any item that violates the boundaries of this property will be returned after a 30 day processing period an is also subject to a $25 dollar return service fee. Thank-you."

If you have the option of *continuing to live* a rationally selfish life, then suicide cannot be a rational choice. If the option to live rationally selfish is not available, then choosing suicide may be rational, but not properly selfish. It would just be the lesser (better option) of two evils. When people say that suicide is a selfish act, the are speaking of selfishness in the conventional (non-Objectivist) sense. (as in that definition quoted by LogicalPath above "lacking consideration of others" - which is, in fact, not implied *or* denied in the actual meaning).

I don't disagree, but doesn't the above serve as an exception to this statement, "Only statements about something that exists can be true." (i.e. Unless the statement is confirming, as true, the non-existence of the subject.) Anyway, I still don't see what is trying to be established in the statement. Are we just establishing that there can be no facts about arbitrary gibberish words and concepts? And further, Contradictions DO exist in a very specific context. They don't physically exist, but there are many examples of metaphysical contradictions held by individuals. People often pursue values and goals in contradiction with each other.