Godless Capitalist

Many experienced and knowledgeable Objectivists seem to forget that what may seem like an obvious error to them is not so obvious to the less knowledgeable. A lot of these issues are fairly complex and failure to immediately agree on some point does not make a person an evil irrational monster. Unfortunately some experienced and knowledgeable Objectivists do not see this, and resort to insults instead of rational arguments. That is why I no longer bother responding to such people. I should add that these comments to not apply to Kelley. He does have the experience and knowledge to know that a Marxist professor is not someone who has anything valuable to offer Objectivists.

Actually I do not think Kelley deserves to call himself an Objectivist, for the reasons given in "Fact and Value." But the reasons are not that easy to understand. In that essay LP even says that a mass Objectivist movement may be premature! As for dealing with libertarians (or anyone else) I agree with James Adkins. I just talk to people and find out if they are willing to discuss issues rationally. I don't make blanket assumptions about people based on the label they adopt, which may not mean to them what it means to Objectivists. With people like bible-thumpers and marxists it takes very little time before I give up, so it's not that big a loss. Again, most of the libertarians I meet are not hippies, anarchists, or drug addicts. They are mostly classical liberals, following a political philosophy that existed before AR came along. This movement is not blatantly irrational; it just lacks a proper philosophical base. Thoyd Loki brought up a good point in another thread (http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=1848&st=0): "Point being that I don't think it readily apparent a dishonesty for someone to be a libertarian, and there are several mediating factors that a person could have." Betsy agreed: "So true! The easiest way to separate the honest ones from the trolls is to present facts and reasons and see what happens. Some do a 180. Some think it over and come back a month later convinced. Some get defensive. Some retreat into more bizarre positions. Some resort to ad hominems. You see what someone does when presented with the facts and act accordinly." Thoyd again: "Age is one of those mediating factors. Not having come across the Objectivist arguments against Libertarianism. Being new to the whole thing no matter what the age." Betsy: "Definitely. That's why I grant anyone under 30 or anyone into Objectivism less than two years a "Learner's Permit.""

Agreed. It's not enough to make lots of money if you hate your work and don't feel fulfilled by it. I see this in my own work (freelance editing). Some jobs I take on are boring and unchallenging and I just plow through them as best I can. If all my work was like that I would change careers. Agreed again. I think AR's novels sometimes give people the idea that they are failures unless they have major heroic goals and accomplishments. (Note by the way that Eddie Willers was not invited into Galt's Gulch. Why not?)

I generally agree with Wakeland. I have tried to make similar arguments in other threads here, to little avail. How can a government be your representative if you did not freely choose it and do not have the power to oppose it? I have no problem with collateral civilian casualties that occur as a result of our attacking an enemy's government and military. But I don't agree that everyone in an entire country is equally the enemy just because their government attacked us. Dictatorial governments are more like criminal gangs than legitimate governments, and should be treated accordingly. They represent only themselves; the people they control are not responsible for their actions. (I am probably not going to say much more on this issue, as I have little time for fruitless arguments.)

I've read all of the Tuchman books mentioned, although quite a while ago so I don't remember much detail. I do remember enjoying the narrative style, though. I do recall reading one criticism of Guns of August that it presents WW1 as "just happening" as a result of some sort of mindless momentum, without really holding any of the actors responsible. The critic argued that really Germany and Austria were much more to blame than France etc. I would say Tuchman's books are worth reading, but critically. Don't assume her perspective is always correct. You might also try some books by Paul Johnson, John Keegan, and William Manchester.

That was written more than 30 years ago! Most of the libertarians I meet these days (mostly at the CATO Institute) are not hippies or anarchists. They are people who are generally pro-freedom but without a solid philosophical base. I think it is worth trying to reach out to them and provide them with that base. Perhaps we will not always succeed but of course that is true with many other people Objectivists try to influence. (I don't want to get into a long debate here about this. There are already other threads on the site about how to deal with libertarians.)

I think she means Federal Reserve. There is no good reason to have one, or any government involvement in money at all. Bridget, try reading the essay "Gold and Economic Freedom" by Allan Greenspan (yes, the Fed chair) http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/Greenspan.html

Forgot to add: I am still wearing a suit that my father-had custom-made for himself 40 yrs ago. It's obviously not in style but I still get compliments on it. Maybe not fashionable but certainly classic clothing is easy to find at Goodwill. Just look for clothes that have a simple straightforward style that does not stand out as being obviously dated. For a 60-yr-old it is not a big deal to wear clothes that are several decades old; it will just be assumed that he bought them years ago and still likes them. Can't think of a good specific example ...

Most of the time I don't care that much; I just wear whatever is comfortable. When I do dress up for a semiformal or formal event I try to look good but don't bother following the latest fashions. I still wear my pleated pants; they are comfortable and look good so why should I care if they are "in fashion"?

The moderators here generally don't lock threads just because the thread starter doesn't like the direction the thread is going. Behaviorism is UNscientific by default because it ignores the nature of the entities being studied. Human beings are conscious and volitional; if you try to study them by assuming they function only by automatic responses to stimuli you get nowhere. It would be like trying to study auto mechanics by assuming that cars are conscious and decide for themselves where they want to go. As for the AI question, IF you could make an AI that had the same rational and volitional properties as humans, then it would (in my opinion) deserve to have the same rights as humans. However, there is no evidence to suggest this will be possible any time soon, if ever, so there is not much point in speculating about it. I suggest you look up some of the old existing threads on this topic.

As it happens, my wife's sister already named her son Ethan. Having cousins with the same name would be too confusing! Alexander is at the top of the list right now. No big symbolism except that Alexander Mackenzie was a famous northern Canadian explorer. Thanks again, all.

Did you mean "expatriates"? Are you thinking about doing this yourself? If so, where would you go that would be any better?

For a casual reference dictionary, I suggest American Heritage (mostly because of the useful usage notes). For more serious use, I suggest an old Webster's New Collegiate based on Webster's New International Dictionary 2nd edition (NOT 3rd edition and NOT Webster's New World)

neuromancer, do you really not see the incredible skill and dedication required to play sports at a professional level? I have little interest in pro sports, but I can certainly admire the talent of the players and understand why many people do enjoy pro sports. What's wrong with that? As for "what's the point?," one may as well ask what the point is of admiring art, or reading novels, etc. (I'd like to see the source of that quote by the way.)

I'm not clear on what you are saying, David. Compelling someone to give testimony is a rights violation, isn't it? I don't see how that can be justified even by the desire to protect someone else's rights. After all, if you see someone being mugged, you are not required to go over and try to defend them (assuming for the purpose of discussion you could do so at no risk to yourself).

This is a good idea, but I don't see why the Fed would have convulsions. Why would they care?

Just to be clear, emotions as such are neither rational or irrational, moral or immoral. I would say not unfaithfulness as such but the fear of unfaithfulness, which in turn is based on lack of trust (perhaps deserved). I would have no problem with my completely honorable wife hanging out in Jacuzzis with other men. Sitting in a Jacuzzi is not the same as having sex with someone.

If you have evidence that your wife is unfaithful then yes it would be rational. Otherwise it isn't. Obviously there are borderline cases where you have reason to be suspicious but no solid evidence. In this case I do not see any evidence of unfaithfulness, so I think your problem is realy insecurity about your relationship. My advice is to deal with that, not try to prevent your wife from doing things just because they make you uncomfortable. Doing that will just cause further conflict. I should add that I trust my wife completely. She has been on camping trips alone with male friends and it does not bother me at all.

Yes, but it should be more like 3%, not 30%. I have some 1 oz. Maple Leaf gold coins; their sales price was only a few percent above their bullion value. If you want to buy gold or silver, buy coins or bullion bars that do not have huge markups. I should also mention that I bought my gold coins 20 yrs ago and they have gained little or no value. Meanwhile stocks have gone up substantially. I do agree the dollar has fundamental problems, but don't buy gold expecting a quick profit. I don't regret buying it, but I see it mainly as a safety net against a currency collapse.

I'm not a legal scholar, but most of that seems like nonsense to me.

I am no longer going to respond to anything stephen_speicher posts. His personal attacks are quite disappointing. I expected better from him. You have some good points. Do you think, though, that Iran did not notice that the US attacked 2 countries right next to them? No, we did not destroy those countries, but we killed or captured their leaders, which should concern Iran's leaders. Why would they think there is no way they will be next? Note by the way that Saddam seemed to believe his own delusional claims that Iraq would defeat the American invasion. Hitler had similar delusions. It's likely Iran's leaders feel the same way. Trying to intimidate some people by crushing others assumes a level of connection with reality that may not be there. Anyway, I think I am done with this topic.

There's no contradiction. Yes, I would drop the bomb in order to save American lives. I would not do so, however, merely to "punish the enemy." As for the idea that people give a dictatorship sanction by not fleeing, have you never heard of the Berlin Wall? It's not rational to sacrifice yourself trying to escape. It's also not rational to sacrifice yourself in a futile rebellion. It's absurd to say that people are responsible for their government, when they did not freely choose that government and cannot freely oppose it. How can there be responsibility without freedom of choice?

I grew up in Canada and have noticed that too. Part of the reason I think is that servers are paid more to begin with due to minumum wage laws. Another reason is Canadians are more egalitarian and don't believe as strongly in rewarding people for making extra effort. I really saw this when I visited Icelend recently. It's even more egalitarian and tipping is pretty rare. As a result, service, although generally good, is rarely exceptional.

Perhaps partly because of this, Canada's immigration system gives immigration applicants points for things like having a skill that is in short supply, having a lot of money to invest in a business, already knowing how to speak English or French, etc.

Old Rush for sure. 2112 was explicitly based on Anthem. Neil Peart, the drummer, is also the lyricist and was heavily influenced by AR. Some of my favorites are The Trees, Tom Sawyer, Free Will, and Something for Nothing.