CptnChan

"Do I have to physically create something in order to achieve pride and self-esteem?" I would like to see more discussion of this.

The extent to which his actions affected the train doesn't change whether or not he is moral. The question was essentially asking if he should be considered a no-good moocher for stealing a free ride on a crumbling railroad line. You wouldn't say "a thief stole $100 dollars from a billionaire, and that doesn't really hurt the billionaire, so what?" The point to be addressed here is, should we consider the bum immoral for taking something he didn't earn. And IMO the answer is found in what he does when he is caught, which shows his true character.

Well Dagny bought him dinner and gave him a job, so he couldn't have been too bad....

Look at dat photo-graphic evidence theyuh!

Have you been watching too much Dr. Who? Anyway, the human species doesn't need to be any of your concern, as such. Right now, you may want it to thrive so you can benefit, but beyond your children's lives, no generation really needs to matter to you. And if one day, all human progress ends, you won't be around to be sad about it, so it doesn't really matter.

Are you implying that modern art as depicted in this painting is rational?

http://www.peikoff.com/?s=dancing 1:30 to 1:47 makes me think of Elaine, from Seinfeld.

Why was it fashionable 200 hundred years ago for men to wear powdered wigs? The world may never know....

http://www.peikoff.com/tag/miscellaneous/page/28/ ^^ the very first question. I couldn't find it, but there's also a podcast where Peikoff briefly relates his experience trying drugs. It's one of the most hilarious things I've ever heard. If anyone knows what I'm talking about and can link it, please do so. Basically he had a bad trip and was paralyzed for a short time. He said he would "never do it again, out of terror." Obviously that in itself is not hilarious, but the way he just calmly relates the story, and uses the word "terror" (which I can't ever recall someone using in such a context), made me die laughing.

In Beck's fictional book "The Overton Window" the character finds rebels living apart from society. Of course, Ray Bradbury did it before AS. Obviously not before the concept was born, but Fahrenheit 451 came out before AS.

I just laughed heartily at the plumber line. I read AS before I became a plumber. That line was much more thoroughly enjoyable this time around. As for the question, isn't "surrendered it completely" a false statement? True he surrendered his profession in the "real" world, but isn't that only because of the promise of resuming it in the Gulch? Isn't it the same for all of the strikers? Were it not for Galt, wouldn't most of them have kept working in a world that hated them? Edit: Obviously, we can't predict what fictional characters would do. Only their creator could. It just seemed to me that they abandoned their businesses only after they knew there was an alternative.

I'm not so sure about this. I guess it depends on what you mean by wrong. Perhaps it can be explained in a way that makes sense, but when put into practice is it really a good idea? Just because all parties consent at the outset, that doesn't necessarily mean all parties will continue to feel that way once it's actually happening.

Thanks for these responses it is helping very much. The one thing that still bothers me, is that often times on his podcast, Peikoff has been asked if there are any real heroes, or "John Galts". He always answers emphatically yes, saying that Ayn Rand was such a person. A person who was the perfect embodiment of a moral code. I certainly can see that she did this most of her life, and definitely in regards to her career, but as far as this one thing is concerned, it seems that such a poor decision would leave at least a small mark on her record. I just can't ever imagine John Galt carrying on a consensual affair. Obviously I wouldn't expect Peikoff to answer like he does and then say with a footnote: "except she did have an affair which led to a lot of distress and is not consistent with rationality." That really wouldn't serve any purpose. But why declare so emphatically that she was John Galt? I don't expect her to be perfect, and I imagine any other rational person who accepts objectivism wouldn't either. Why not say something like: "There was someone with the reasoning capabilities and brilliance of John Galt and that was Ayn Rand." Or, "The closest thing to John Galt was Ayn Rand." Instead of saying she was the perfect embodiment of her moral code. I don't mean to equate this with some kind of religious thing. It's not like I'm some kind of faith-driven follower who found out Jesus secretly did something for himself or anything like that. I apologize if this borders some kind of drone mind mentality.

Thanks, this makes sense to me.

I don't really know where to go to get the complete true story of what happened between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. Obviously there are lots of forums and website that say a lot of things. I almost wanted to write Peikoff about it, but I'm almost certain he wouldn't address it, and honestly I don't really want to bother him with it. I'm sure he's heard it plenty. It's just that on his podcast he has spoken negatively of adultery so much. He has spoken of the pain of being cheated on, and how if you truly love a person you will need no substitute. So this story of Ayn Rand having a consensual affair is very disturbing to me. Probably more than it should be. But really. Like, it bothers me a LOT. Kind of jarring really. I'm not a fan of being shaken. So does anyone know where there is an official account, or "objectivist" explanation for such a thing? If she really did do this, did she ever say that she was sorry, or that it was a mistake? I placed this in ethics because if this story is true, how can you justify such an action? I'm having a pretty hard time with this. (P.S. mods if ethics is the wrong place move me.)

The comment thread on that washington post article is too entertaining to be legal. I'm surprised they didn't show a photograph of an ice cube melting on asphalt. I heard that it totally melts like 10 seconds faster than it did a decade ago...

I went to a Montessori school until 6th grade. I give it a lot of credit for why I enjoy thinking critically, and why I have never expected to "share my work load" so to speak, and to take care of my own business by and for myself.

Ok, you may be right, perhaps I exaggerated. "Hates capitalism" is definitely there. But there is a documentary on Netflix which interviews dozens of top shelf horror directors like Wes Craven, George Romero, and I believe John Carpenter. Throughout the documentary, many of them describe the motives behind their stories, and anti-corporatism and consumerism is for sure mentioned. But if memory serves me right, I'm pretty sure a couple of them mentioned how in their movies they wanted to show the real truth of "human nature", or something like that. Implying that inside we are ugly. I'm sorry, this is a terrible reply, I have no definite quotes nor can I even remember the name of the movie. I just remember watching and being pretty disappointed at hearing such influential directors whom I liked, saying such negative things about man. If i can recall the title I'll tell you.

My head hurts. I've been "discussing" this subject with my friend, who says not having a free education option would result in many un-educated people, who therefore can't get jobs, which will widen the gap between the rich and poor. I realize this is one of the last things that would have to be changed in the development of a free society, if we were to reform the US. Also, as Yaron Brook has mentioned before, the mentality of the entire culture would be drastically different in a free society. I kept having to remind him of this, because he kept making comparisons to countries that exist now. Anyway, perhaps you can review my answers or give me some logical counter points to some of his proposed scenarios, provided they aren't too strawman: 1. Poor families wouldn't be able to afford to send their kid to school, since they wouldn't have the money for such additional costs. This is obviously conjecture, and it assumes that the cost of living in a free society would still be as inflamed as it is today. I also pointed out that with education free'd up, there would then be competition, and thus there would be a "cheaper" education option. He wasn't convinced that parents would somehow be able to plan ahead or make adjustments in living to pay for their kids education, but regardless he moved on to this: 2. Many parents don't care that much about their children's education. They enroll them because it's free. Also, what if the parents are drunks or gamblers and they don't provide for the child's education. I don't know where he determined this about "many" parents, but I pointed out that if it is the case, then despite it being unfortunate for the child, he would still have options to sustain himself as soon as possible. He could get a job without education. If the parents are seriously neglectful, then the court could certainly step in. 3. How do you know he can get a job? If they never send him to any schooling, and he can't read or write, he will never get a good job, and be poor his whole life, due to no fault of his own. I didn't really have a answer for this except that this is an extreme circumstance, to which he asserted that he has seen many many poor families in which the parents don't care at all about the education of their children and if it wasn't for public school the kids wouldn't even know how to read. Again, I couldn't say anything because although I agree that situation exists somewhere, it sounds extreme to me. I also pointed out that if the child is indeed doomed to an uphill struggle for survival his whole life because his parents screwed him over that badly, then he can be determined to do the opposite for his child, or choose to not have children, to which he said: 4 But he can't provide an education for his child, because he will be too poor, and the cycle will forever continue. Again, I find this to be an issue related to a controlled economy, not a free one, because there will be endless options for work, which brought my friend back to point 3. So the bottom line is: Will there be education options for the poorest people in a free society? How much education would REALLY be needed for a person to get a job which he could sustain himself on? If he or his parents REALLY couldn't pay for school, could he find education elsewhere? Is this whole thing a ridiculous scenario? Should I turn to heavy drinking from this conversation? His final analysis is: This will result in the poor staying poor.

It wouldn't be appropriate for the teacher to espouse any philosophy. But I might imagine an objectivist teach would try to teach more... objectively. Peikoff has talked about his teaching days often in his podcast.

Text messages are also easily ignored, while ignoring someone who is personally talking to you is much harder. Back in the good old days you had to walk half a day to someone's house to make a courtship call. Then they really couldn't just ignore you.

Dangit I had this idea first....

I saw this on your blog and i was lol-ing so hard. genius.

Isn't this what I said? ^^

But there is no proof that this will minimize it. And he doesn't just kill one man, he blows up an entire city. Granted the book goes to great lengths to portray the entire city as full of evil people, but again that's fiction. And also, in the novel, it seems his plan does work, but in real life, I just can't see how you can justify such a faux peace based on shocking the world's nations through fear. It's not a better scenario. That's like saying religion helps to make the world better by scaring people into not stealing.