[Reblogged: Considering Trump on Immigration]

August 26, 2015

 

I would like to invite anyone interested in IMMIGRATION POLICY and on weighing in on this in depth debate about immigration at Amy Peikoff's blog DONTLETITGO.com.  (192 posts so far)

 

The debate is a follow up of Amy's Blog Talk Radio Show last weekend.  Catch the rewind here:

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amypeikoff/2015/08/23/dligu-a-discussion-of-immigration-policy

 

 

 

It's getting really interesting and hopefully it has sparked new thought on the issue of immigration.

[Are all business entities somewhat coercive monopolies today?]

Here on the Mike Slater radio show, Don Watkins of ARI has shown how when government mixes in business, they essentially become an arm of the government. In that way, they are coercive monopolies hindering many potential businesses from entering the market in the first place. Just one example is that compliance to government regulation is so cumbersone and crippling to business even before a license is acquired, the time wasted aspect alone is a huge factor toward hindering new, innovative competition.

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kfmbam/podcast/audio/the_mike_slater_show_7003.mp3

I think its essential for ARI to express that fact clearly. Even the lesser unfettered businesses are shackled and somewhat coercive to new business.

[Are all business entities somewhat coercive monopolies today?]

at what level Government intervention does morally justify “quitting the system”. When would it become unproductive to try to be productive, so to speak?

Rephrasing my question in this way helps shed some light on the idea for me. Of course man must be productive in order to live but I guess I wonder at what point it is fruitless or shall I say turns the "thrive" aspect into mere survival for an individual and therefore society as well. I can think of examples of careers which are, in my view, totally useless.... the mouchers of the business world, like lawyers making money on irrational contradictory law. Or the kinds of products selling on the shelves which are totally useless and are simply made to achieve the highest profit margin.. and somehow the idea of a fad occurs in the culture and everyone wants one.. (easily sold to a population of people who have been rendered non-thinking sheeple) but it is really a useless item and would not benefit anyone's life in any real way. Or imagine all the things that are not being made that would be so valuable to people today but we are being deprived of their very inventionbecause of government interference . I think all of these corruptions are the result of the government mixed marketplace and would not exist in a true lassaize faire system.

Atlas Shrugged certainly aludes to that tipping point and maybe we're already there or have gone past it but where is John Galt?

[Are all business entities somewhat coercive monopolies today?]

In your OP you indicated that something ARI says contradicts your OP, but you didn't give many details.

Ayn Rand was an "all or nothing" kind of thinker. I am as well.

“In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”

― Ayn Rand

There are many examples put forth by ARI giving leadership in the Philosophy of Objectivism to businessmen in order to act morally and be truly successful in their pursuits, success meaning achieving happiness. In essence what I'm saying is how can any business be successful in today's mixed economy and how can any businessman strive for true happiness when in some way he is acting disingenuously because he must play by the rules in order to exist? This brings up the issue of morality. How shall man act if he is being forced to act dishonestly for his own long term survival? Will he truly be capable of achieving real happiness?

[Are all business entities somewhat coercive monopolies today?]

Re-read Ayn Rand's definition of coercive monopoly: it doesn't say, "a business whose existence is in some way protected by the government".

First, I didn't say that a coercive monopoly is in some way protected by the government. Essentially what I said is that new potential businesses would have their chance at success compromised to what its full potential could be because the playing field can never be level in today's world.

Take my example where some govt favored businesses would have better traffic flow than others. If the roads weren't public and in govt control, the playing field would be more fair. That is, if property rights were protected and owned by individuals and not govt, coercive monopolies would have no chance at all. Therefore, unless property rights are galvanized in objective law, all businesses are somewhat coercive to others trying to enter the marketplace.

According to Ayn Rand's definition of coercive monopolies, some businesses are coercive because they limit the access to enter the market to compete. We are talking about the extent or degree this affects all new business and I'm saying a monopoly is coercive if it limits to any degree access to free competition. Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner and that is what occurs today in business the minute a license is obtained by a new business operator. Unfair advantage is just that. . . coercive.

I hope someone can show me where I'm wrong.

.

[Are all business entities somewhat coercive monopolies today?]

Aren’t all Businesses Coercive Monopolies in Today’s World?

The title of Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal holds a profound meaning. I think she was an extraordinary visionary who understood the world we live in now would have absolutely no resemblance to a different world in which government had never intervened in the economy. I share her vision. Maybe we wouldn’t even be driving cars on roads!

According to Ayn Rand, “A coercive monopoly is a business concern that can set its prices and production policies independent of the market, with immunity from competition, from the law of supply and demand.”

I accept the premise that interference with force by government is the direct cause of coercive monopolies. By force, the government imposes controls on all business today, large and small, hindering their ability to act completely on their own behalf with licensing, subsidies, incentives, regulation, etc. Even the relatively less unfettered businesses must buy a license and are subject to restrictions on zoning, safety, etc. There would be no coercive monopolies, only healthy beneficial ones, in a completely free market economy. That is the point I’m having trouble with because I also hear from ARI that it is possible to compete fairly and do business morally in today’s economy. But how can that be so in light of the fact all business today is controlled in one way or another with force by government? Doesn’t that make all business, regardless of its nature or size, inherently a coercive monopoly in some way?

For example, in Canada, the system is so corrupt that many government friendly businesses who have accepted an incentive, for example, to use the Maple Leaf in their logo or add the phrase “Proudly Made in Canada” in their store window or another example, to incorporate a green message into the business logo, or ad, etc. The businesses who take up the incentive are then favored, i.e., they may be privy to a preferred location with, for example, easy access of traffic flow (i.e., merge lanes into that mall instead of left hand turning light or a preferred location like a government registries office or the post office). Would that not give those businesses a coercive advantage over other businesses who chose not to take the same incentive? If some businesses have advantages over others due to government intervention, doesn’t that make the whole economy inherently corrupt and more difficult for other potential businesses to enter the market and to compete fairly. Wouldn’t that mean all existing business are coercive monopolies? It seems impossible for a true level playing field to exist now in our mixed economies and that all businesses who currently exist have an unfair advantage over those potential new innovations and businesses. If there weren’t any government involvement, I believe there would be so many more businesses competing.

I agree completely with ARI in striving for the Ideal which Ayn Rand articulates. However, my concern is the way ARI frames the message. Currently it appears to be somewhat confusing.

[Internet Censorship]

here

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion right off hand that this is censorship.

Depending on what you were trying to watch it could have been any number of things, including a licensing agreement.

Some things will be licensed for showing in some countries and not others, and some things are licensed to be viewed on some forms of equipment and not others.

Censorship is imposed through public licensing by governments who have the power to filter and funnel information. For example, in Canada there is a "Heritage Minister" and a CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission) who police all media content in Canada or crossing the border.

Ayn Rand wrote extensively on how government controls information through licensing the airwaves.

Alex Epstein said,

Under the "public" airwaves regime, businesses do not own but merely "license" portions of spectrum--which the government has total authority to control in the "public interest." The use of spectrum is determined, not by the business that has purchased and earned it, but by the FCC--by whatever it feels is in the indefinable "public interest." In the realm of media, FCC bureaucrats can effectively censor viewpoints they dislike by revoking broadcast licenses or imposing huge fines. In the realm of wireless data, FCC bureaucrats and Congress can impose more onerous terms on a paying licensee anytime they wish--such as Google's proposal that licensees be forced to sell large portions of their bandwidth to competitors at FCC-dictated "reasonable" rates, no matter what it does to their business.

In all such cases, the creators with the best ideas and the willingness to prove them in a free market are throttled by lobbyists and government officials who can wheel and deal in Washington--and innovation suffers accordingly.

Americans need to start recognizing airwaves as the private property they really are, and demand the abolition of the FCC. Then the government can hold a fair and just auction for the 700 MHz spectrum, and the others, in which each spectrum is not licensed but sold--no strings attached.

Find the whole article here. Also Read "Property Status of the Airwaves" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand.

Censorship is not determined by a free market but by a bureaucrat through licensing (permission).

[Internet Censorship]

I am encountering more frequently messages of censorship on the internet. For example, Today I tried to access a video clip on Hulu.com (

) from Canada and got this message:

"We're Sorry currently our video library can only be streamed in the United States. For more information on Hulu's international availability, click here."

Following that link informed me "Hulu now available in Japan". Canada seems to have some content from Hulu but very minimal and many streams are blocked.

What are others impressions of internet censorship. Your experience could help shed light on our dwindling freedom of information.

[Canadian Oil Sands, Good or Evil ?]

I am a Canadian Engineering student completing a work term with one of the companies producing oil from the tar sands in Alberta. While my experience has been very positive, the demonization of this industry has become very apparent to me and its influence on the people of Canada. Instead of being a point of pride, the oil sands development seems to be a sort of burden that many Canadians wish would be wiped out in the name of protecting the environment.

These opinions are prominent outside of my country as well as referenced in the EU’s recent proposal towards to oils sands.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/24/eu-oilsands.html

While the proposal of adding penalties to Canadian oil were turned down as mentioned in the article above, the fact that these types of suggestions are being put forward is proof enough of the global opinion towards this industry.

My questions for the forum are as follows, what is the general opinion of Americans regarding this industry? And secondly, what is the opinion of objectivists?

Hi Young Engineer,

I am an Albertan who has been fighting for freedom in Alberta for the last 20 years. I have given up and am now an Objectivist who sees the only solution is education of our youth in philosophic principles..I work where I think people still have some semblance of free speech.. not in Canada. I feel for you as you are up against not only the environmental religionists but the elite regime in Eastern Canada. Alberta has always been a slave to Eastern Canada. I would love to share all what I know about the truth of Canada with you. Your hair would stand up on end in shock! Canada is not a free country and never was having inherited the antiquated British Parliamentary system invented by Kings when there was not even a hint of the idea that man could control his own destiny. I have nephews in the oil industry who would empathise with you. I suggest you read and listen to Alex Epstein's material at his new website Center for Industrial Progress and his Facebook Page http://www.facebook.com/#!/thepursuitofenergy.

My best to you.

[Singapore- "Intelligent Cities", Industry-specific Ecosystems,]

An elite group probably has a better set of incentives to keep a low taxed, slightly regulated economy (a pretty good thing in comparison today). So the rulers of Hong Kong pretty much do that there, capitalism is exploitable, there for they keep their cow fat and happy, they get to keep milking it. Sadly this only applies enlightened people though. Inevitably a dumbass gets in power and the decay sets in. The cow gets abused, and dies.

Democracy just doesn't seem to work. There isn't any incentive for presidents to maintains a tax base longer than eight years (let the economic crash happen while I am out the door).

"Democracy" doesn't work because it provides no individual rights - particularly property rights, the necessary base for Capitalism. Democracy refers to the majority (a group) rule over the minority (another group)... but neither the majority nor the minority provide any rights for the individual.

A group is not a living entity... it is merely a collection of individuals.

Sidebar: The Founding Fathers tried to escape the tyranny of a "Democacy". Individual Rights was at the core of their philosophy. So in their noble attempt they formed a Republic instead of a Democracy or Monarchy or Oligarchy. America is not a "Democracy" but a Republic.

If you are talking about a compromise on Capitalism, I think you mean a "mixed economy" of some sort whether it be Fascism, Communism or Socialism. Some would call Singapore an example of Fascism.

To quote Ayn Rand..

“Free competition enforced by law” is a grotesque contradiction in terms."

I am not happy with any compromise on Capitalism for that means some form of tyranny (force at the point of a gun). Yes, I'm a purist. I think we need to openly reject all toxicity, no matter how diluted the arsenic in the big glass of water. . . the drink is still poisonous. We need to advocate the complete separation of the economy and the state.

[Hello everyone]

Hello everyone,

It feels like I’ve come through a passage way to a rare and safe place here. I think I’ve been drawn toward ideas since my youth. My search for truth seems to have been a life-long quest on which I have taken many wrong turns. I was raised in a Catholic environment but I declared myself an atheist at 15. I had a sense of Objectivist morality but could not find a way to concretize it or expand it and my exposure was always to its opposite ideas.

I studied Geology and Anthropology at University. My life has been in a supportive role living around the world in other countries and raising my family. Living in Moscow, Indonesia and Cyprus and visiting many other countries gave me an opportunity for cross cultural study.

Something was wrong with my world, particularly when it came to justice in all forms. My Father was a thinker and was my catalyst to free thought. My parents were both children of Americans who immigrated to Canada to grab free land so culturally maybe that is where some of my “sense of free life” came from.

I became interested in politics in Canada as I could see no point for a Monarch of a foreign country to be our Head of State with her profile all over our money. I joined a movement for Canada to become a Republic and we even wrote and signed a Declaration of Independence. Through this journey I gave speeches to a few filled rooms and many empty rooms of people. It soon became apparent the deeper moral philosophy of the audiences was not anywhere near that of freedom and that politics was not a route toward real change.

Then I discovered Ayn Rand and turned to what I see now, that it is philosophy at the root of problems and solutions. Objectivism to me is the only real philosophy with real solutions.

I’m very happy to have found you all.

[The Man Thread]

Gary Cooper... not particularly in The Fountainhead but as he became more rugged with age ..in Westerns...

and the guy I think should have played Francisco d'Anconia in A$. . . Antonio Banderas

Both of these men ooze self confidence by their seemingly cool indifference to the opinions of others. . . both are very easy on the eyes and both have gorgeous eyes.

[Singapore- "Intelligent Cities", Industry-specific Ecosystems,]

Completely agree, and yet I found it interesting enough to share here.

Having lived in Singapore, I see it is an example of a benevolent dictator, although not completely benevolent. . for it is an oppressive environment where man's mind cannot thrive. No real capitalist society could ever exist under those conditions.

I think it is unhealthy to promote state controlled "capitalism" of any kind because to me "state capitalism" is an oxymoron.

Capitalism is not only an economic system, it is a moral social system where all men have the freedom to think and produce unfettered by the ideas of an elitist regime who have the power to impose their few ideas on the rest. Instead we should have the benefit of millions of minds.

I have often thought we should have a fun discussion of imagining how lassaize faire capitalism would manifest itself if it were to begin tomorrow. What would our world begin to look like? Infrastructure? Schools (maybe cyber schools run by parents?) Health care? etc.

I think it would begin to bare no resemblance to our world today.

[TIME-The Market Can't Cure Medicare]

I found this wonderful (sarcasm) piece in my latest issue of TIME magazine. Thoughts?

Three lovely quotes:

"So many companies will be rushing in to provide health insurance to aging boomer's that the competition should keep the price of premiums from rising much. "There is no evidence of that," says Yale School of Management professor Fiona Scott Morton, "There really isn't. We have many uninsured people who are paying out of pocket for things, and it's not driving down prices."

"But the game doesn't work in our favor all the time. The airline industry is crazy competitive, right? Except that fares have increased nine times since mid-December. You may notice that having 4 (gas) service stations within 2 blocks of one another hasn't noticeably lowered the price at the pump. Cable and satellite-television providers are constantly attacking each other in their advertising. Has your cable bill retreated over the past 5 years?

"Nowhere in the Adam Smith rule book does it say that prices have to come down every time new competitors show up."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2066767,00.html

I suggest you read the bit on coercive monopolies (there can be more than one - in Canada the govt makes sure things appear competitive - there is always more than one drug store) in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal. If there was no government interference, that is the complete separation of the state and the economy, there would be a heck of a lot more companies competing. I think it is hard to imagine what a true lassaize faire capitalist system would look like. I think it would be completely unrecognizable from what we see today. I don't even think we would have roads.

[A Review Of The Passion Of Ayn Rand's Critics]

Originally posted by Diana from NoodleFood,

Casey Fahy e-mailed me this morning to alert me to a fantastic review by Peter Cresswell of James Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics (PARC). It's perhaps the most passionate book review I've ever read -- and thus perfectly appropriate to its subject. It's also a delight to read, so I'm pleased to strongly recommend it. Those who've already devoured PARC are sure to particularly appreciate its stubborn refusal to mince words. To whet your appetite, let me just quote one bit from the opening. Peter writes that The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics is:

All true.

The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics reveals with crystal clarity the ongoing-to-this-day dishonesty, exploitation, injustice, and malice of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden in their dealings with Ayn Rand. In so doing, it completely undermines their portrayals of Ayn Rand as a vengeful philosophical tyrant. Even better, Ayn Rand's journals reveal her heroic benevolence, patience, and honesty in her attempts to right the relationship.

In my own case, I realized that Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were evil before reading PARC, just based upon Nathaniel's dishonest smears of Objectivism in his Benefits and Hazards essay and Barbara's disgusting psychologizing in The Passion of Ayn Rand. However, I didn't know just thoroughly dishonest, manipulative, and unjust they were and are until I read James Valliant's book. It was an eye-opener, even for me.

Like so many other people, reviewer Peter Cresswell was "persuaded reluctantly" to read PARC, yet he says that is "very happy" that he did. And he read it honestly, as his review shows.

Others dare not be so honest.

Bob Bidinotto has praised Barbara's The Passion of Ayn Rand for years. He contributed a quote to its back cover, describing it as "an epic tale of soaring ecstasy and searing pain, of unbelievable triumph and unspeakable tragedy." Yet just about the time that PARC was published, he decided that he's not so interested in Ayn Rand's life after all. On SoloPassion, he wrote:

Ed Hudgins demonstrated a similar lack of interest in the book, despite the fact that his organization regularly invites Nathaniel and Barbara Branden to speak at conferences and the like. Although willing to read criticisms of the book, he's not all that interested in reading the book itself. He said: "Robert -- Great to have you back posting on SOLO! How are you doing? Very thoughtful analysis of the Valient/Rand book. I've only glanced at it since I'm more interested in the ideas rather than personality issues, but I'll give the AR entries a read."

These two men know full well that Jim Valliant's book is a bombshell regarding the moral characters of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. They have seen many, many reports of people dramatically changing their judgment of the Brandens upon reading PARC on SoloHQ and SoloPassion. Moreover, these men are the top brass of The Objectivist Center, an organization supposedly devoted to Ayn Rand's philosophy, but with strong ties to both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden.

Yet they're not interested in the book. It's irrelevant to them. They do not care to learn that two people so intimately involved with their organization for so many years are thoroughly corrupt and dishonest. They are unconcerned that these people are the major source of vicious lies about Ayn Rand's life. They aren't bothered by the fact that Nathaniel's criticisms of Objectivism as encouraging repression are the figments of his own twisted psychology. They are happy to present these people as experts on Objectivism, even though they're still just pretending. They do not even care that they are aiding and abetting the Brandens' in their vengeful quest to destroy Ayn Rand and Objectivism by offering them a seemingly respectable platform from which to do so.

In short, Ed Hudgins and Bob Bidinotto are determined to tolerate the evil of the Brandens, come hell or high water, yet too cowardly to even learn precisely what they are doing. As Casey Fahy said ever-so-colorfully in the comments on the review: "In reality, those who cling to the dirty bathwater of the Brandens are willing to throw the baby out just to keep wallowing in their filth for another bit of pseudo-Objectivist flattery from the false idols they have chosen to worship."

In my view, Jim Valliant's case against Nathaniel and Barbara Branden in The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics is so overwhelming that no honest person can read it without dramatically changing their judgment of the Brandens for the worse -- and of Ayn Rand for the better. Moreover, a person who accepts any part of the Brandens' portrayal of Ayn Rand, yet refuses to read the book is either dishonest, irresponsible, or a coward. There's just no excuse for self-inflicted blindness -- particularly not from people with any measure of trust in or contact with the Brandens.

And yes, that includes those who attend TOC Summer Seminars, claiming that TOC's involvement with the Brandens isn't important. As PARC shows, Nathaniel Branden is determined to destroy Ayn Rand and Objectivism by whatever dishonest means he can -- all because Ayn Rand dared to reject him after discovering his years and years of immorality concealed by deception. Such a person ought never speak under the banner of a supposedly Objectivist organization, particularly not with his reputation as some kindly grandfather of Objectivism. Any supposedly Objectivist organization willing to give him a platform ought to be boycotted -- by every person who sincerely values Ayn Rand's philosophy. The issue is just that serious: it's like attending a "Freedom Summit" with Uncle Joe Stalin as the keynote speaker.

So please do read The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics -- sooner rather than later. No honest man will regret the few hours spent.

I have just finished reading PARC and I agree completely with your accurate analysis of the book. I would like to know what other "platforms" the Brandens are using to exploit and destroy Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism.

[People who are sexually promiscuous make me mad]

Gayle,

Your last thought first:

Yes, I completely agree..

It has happened a few times, someone comes up and says - Oh, I hear you're interested in philosophy. So I'm sure you must be smart and logical, but haven't you lost touch with your feelings, your inner self?

All I could do is just look at them; I mean, how to convey to a stranger you are not a robot, and it's not just 'philosophy' - it is THE philosophy for life? And that my philosophy has radically increased my awareness of existence and self.

(Next time I've decided to reply something like - the more I reason, the more conscious I become; the more conscious I am, the more I value, and feel and care.)

A little pretentious, maybe.

Your statement is more precise -- "Objectivism heightens the emotions because of the nature of the philosophy ..."

Anyhow, the "lightning rod" or "barometer" of your view of reality Rand called them. Emotions can be one's best friend.

"A dedicated good friend who can witness my life" is brilliantly put, I think. That 'visibility' in friendship and romantic love is a wonderful statement of confidence, and esteem in oneself, when equally perceived by, and possessed by, one's partner.

The tricky bit you bring up is the romantic feelings accompanied by friendship.

This has been absorbing me for a long while. I wonder if I'm 'rationalizing' to believe it is completely possible in this unconventional sort of relationship we are discussing.

Potential heartbreak vs. supreme fulfilment. High risk and high reward.

Is one defying reality, eating your cake and having it?

Or, isn't it the true identity of love, to have both...with freedom?

I do know this: that there are not many excellent, thinking 'souls', of high integrity around, so I don't ever want to discard those I do know, and simply move on.

If you ever find a solution to this conundrum, let me know asap.

Tony,

Can lovers be friends and visa versa? I think you've coined the million dollar question . . "is one defying reality, eating your cake and having it?" . . and you are quite right.. at what cost? I have also been looking for the rational moral principle here.

I don't know if you listen to Peikoff Podcasts but he had a couple of podcasts on the topic of lovers and friends (search "relationships) on May 2 and April 25. I wonder what you would think of Peikoff's opinion. The jury is still out for me.

Unfortunately, many do pidgeon-hole Objectivists into cold analytical non-feeling anti-humans but now we can be armed.

As far as thinking people of integrity go, yes I agree they are rare and precious. Many souls choose just to "blank out".

Best, Gayle

[People who are sexually promiscuous make me mad]

Hi again,

I wonder ...it's a shot in the dark here, but I'm getting the picture, and if I'm being presumptuous, then I apologize in advance.

There is a type of man (and, rarely, a woman) who is what they call 'commitment phobic', as you know.

That's only a partial truth, however.

Whatever the combination of experiences, psychology, character, and conviction, that make him, he can often be a very good guy .

The good one I call an 'honest loner', for want of a better term.

It's not that he doesn't see the value in togetherness, marriage, and all that it entails; it's that he also has, intermittently, a higher value in his time alone.

The dilemma when he tries to keep a relationship going, and disappears into his own world of work and thought, causes discomfort to his partner, and ultimately pain to both.

The HL seldom evades this reality, in himself or to his lady, so he finds it impossible to lie and cheat - but he knows going in, that he will not be able to nurture and sustain his woman and their relationship, long-term. As a result, he makes leaving noises from early on - attempting to soften the blow for her.

Yes, he is discriminating, as you say. And no longer promiscuous. If he ever was.

He also is often connected to the arts, and of introspective nature.

How do I know all this?

Let's just say, on behalf of all the HL's out there, to the women who have offered them warmth and intimacy, shared their thoughts and feelings, and even a hint of the promise of love, I pay my ultimate respect and deepest affection.

You are unforgettable..

Gayle, I wish you all the best.

Tony

Hi Tony,

Thank you for the vivid insite and your kind words. I'm getting your picture too and I really appreciate this exchange. I don't regret being intimate with him and I don't consider the time we were together a waste. I only wish I had known how locked his door was before I began dating him because of how much I value a close relationship (for me that means being a very important factor in someone's life) and how deeply it has affected me since we parted. I did find him to be an honest man.

He said his two sisters suggested to him its time he found someone to share his life with. . which sort of gave me the idea he was considering their suggestion. At one point I asked him if we were "going steady" because he would call me often and want to get together. He said he had never had a "normal" relationship but then we agreed we wouldn't date anyone else but I don't think either of us would have anyway.

I think for me its not a matter of even living together but just to have a dedicated good friend who can witness my life would hold great value for me. He said he still wants to be my friend. So that brings me to the next question... is it possible to be a friend to someone and still have romantic feelings for them or is that a prescription for more heartache?

I often wonder if being an Objectivist heightens the emotions because of the nature of the philosophy.. to critically and thoroughly analyze and identify reality.

My best to you Tony,

Gayle

[People who are sexually promiscuous make me mad]

What can be so wrong, to search for someone to appreciate , and be appreciated by, then to take that leap of intimacy, and then discover it's a no-go? The sadness is a rational response to the loss of a potential value in your life, I think.

But the real value is already in you.

Real self-esteem will bounce back from hurt and disappointment (without negating or denying it), and yours - if I can be so bold - seems healthy underneath its bruising.

To the next golden opportunity!

Thank you for the vote of confidence whYNOT. I forgot to mention that my saxophone player is 55 and has never been married. On one of our first dates he told me that someone told him once to never admit that he'd never been married. I replied, "I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, maybe it means you have very discriminating taste and have not met the right person yet."

Alas, I am healing now but I will look forward to the next golden opportunity. Gayle

[People who are sexually promiscuous make me mad]

I dont believe sex is wrong, immoral, bad, sinful or whatever the labels are that can be placed on it to be viewed in a negative way. I believe sex is a great expression of ones values that they see in their partner and share love making together. But where i live, the country i was raised in (England) and im sure its the same in the U.S, sex for sex's sake is typical and thought of as "nothing wrong with it". For me, to have multiple sexual partners going from one to the other says low self esteem. Im watching a show right now on TV called big brother, basically then take a dozen people from the public and lock them in a house for 14 weeks and see how they cope. One of the discussions was how many partners each had sexually in total, "somewhere under 50" was the majority of answers by the housemates and saying how 5 or 6 a year isnt a bad thing. To me this is disgusting and i could never accept being in a relationship with someone who gives away the most intimate way to express themselves loosely

Am i wrong here or are my views shared with other objectivists such as yourselves?

I have been struggling with this question myself. I have not had much experience dating as I had been married for 20 years and recently divorced. I met a man a few months ago, a tall handsome saxophone player. We met after a concert he performed at in the parking lot. I was quite stand-offish but he was friendly and wanted to know what we were doing after the concert. My friend invited him and the others over for a drink so they came. We didn't sit together or talk much but at the end of the evening I saw him to the door and to the front garden. He said he found me very attractive and kissed me. I went away for a couple of months but we said we would be in touch when I returned.

After our first meeting I felt I had gathered a strong first impression of him. . an attractive wonderful musician, strong silent type with lots of confidence. So when I returned we began dating. He seemed quite smitten with me. I was slower to warm to him but I was beginning to. He kept asking me if I still liked him. We went out hiking and for a few meals. I invited him back to my place. After a few dates he wanted to have sex but I said I wasn't ready. He seemed fine with that. Then I began to warm to him more as I got to know him. . we finally had sex but I think it was an expression of what we valued in each other.

Neither of us had committed to each other though nor had we told each other about how we valued each other. . I think we were both romantically attracted but neither of us considered we were in "love". We have since had a breakup for what I think was his fear of commitment. He never referred to me as his girlfriend, just his "friend". After I had sex with him he seemed to begin backing away and when I told him how much I was beginning to feel for him he said, "oh oh, be careful". There were other factors involved including his getting sick so it is quite confusing.

I am saddened and bewildered because I think we may have missed a golden opportunity. Was it wrong to have sex with him after about one month? I really don't know. Other's comments are welcome.

[Unconditional love]

My x-husband warned me, "Don't ever try to leave me or you'll be sorry." A year ago, after 20 years of marriage, I told him I was through and wanted a divorce. He proceeded to throw me out, lock stock and barrel, from our matrimonial home, enlisting my 19 year old son's help in the process. At the same time my husband was prosthelytizing my son against me with bribery, oppression, defamation and psychological trickery.

During our legal proceedings toward a divorce, my husband convinced my son (I believe with coercion) to testify against me in front of a court reporter claiming I was an abusive mom. He cited an event in which I slapped him for driving like a maniac on a dangerous country road. I believe I had no choice because he would not listen to reason and drive safely. It was either get his attention or perhaps be seriously hurt in an accident.

My son signed his own Affidavit and attached it to my husband’s Affidavit. I believe my x was trying to discredit me as a wife and mother in front of the law in order to gain financially in the property dispute resolution. My son and his dad seem to have a solid alliance now, a sort of "man's club" and a common enemy, me, who broke up our family.

I was a good mom and sole care giver for my son for many years when my husband worked overseas for lengthy periods of time. When my husband was home he was not proactive as a father with my son. I was never an abusive mom in any way and I was always concerned for my son's welfare. For example, I protested issues of indoctrination like global warming, etc. at his school and insisted to the Principal that an opposing view be presented to the class. My husband would portray me as a sort of wacko (for standing up to the teachers, etc) to my son in an attempt to discredit me in his eyes.

For the last 3 or 4 years, due to deliberate defamation of my character to my son by my x, my relationship with my son has been severely estranged despite my trying to contact him with warm emails and calls. I don't believe my son acted in a manner true to his most inner feelings toward me. I think he still has a chance at developing an objective philosophy. I hope his self esteem has not been permanently damaged. He currently does not want to have anything to do with me or my side of the family including his half-sisters from a previous marriage. Once he pretended to be warm when he called but later I discovered he was only spying in order to gather information for his dad.

I’m wondering if I should continue to try to contact my son and encourage a relationship with him? What about counseling if he would agree to it? He is 19 and legally an adult. I believe he still has some respect for me as his mom and that I could be a good influence in his life if he can find that respect again. But he is currently living as a second hander for his dad and others. A further complication is that I am concerned he may act as an informant for his dad which could have an adverse affect on my life. I wonder what hope there is for him now to have an honest and respectful relationship with me and ultimately to be a Howard Roark instead of a Peter Keating?

Rationally, part of me is rejecting a relationship with my son due to the potential adverse affect it could have on my own life (due to him passing information about my life to my x, potential harmful defamation, etc.) The other part of me remembers my son as a delightful benevolent boy. I value his relationship and I would like the chance to guide him to maturity. Perhaps I could do that by just being a role model. I’m not sure. I think the philosophical question to my problem should be - Should a mother's love be unconditional for her son?