New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[kiaer.ts]

Ted:

A joint letter by the principals that you named would be nice, but I doubt that many of them are on speaking terms with the others. So whether they could cooperate on even this seems questionable. This may not end until all of the original participants from the nineteen sixties are no longer active (or are decesed). But as Anne Heller pointed out in the epilogue to her Rand biography, "whole new generations are being taught to keep-up the schismatic prejudices" (my paraphrase).

How sad, ridiculous, and pathetic. Why does Objectionism turn adults into children who lie to themselves that their personal issues are really epic metaphysical ones?

[George H. Smith]

George,

re: Objectivist "assholes and second-handers:"

Is that a clinical diagnosis? Is it treatable?

Many years ago, after some particularly obnoxious Harvard Law School students had attended an IHS seminar, I asked fellow teacher Randy Barnett, "Do you have to be an asshole to get into Harvard Law School, or does it turn you into one?"

Randy, himself a Harvard Law School graduate, replied, "Half and half."

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

How sad, ridiculous, and pathetic. Why does Objectionism turn adults into children who lie to themselves that their personal issues are really epic metaphysical ones?

Ted,

For many years I paid the Ayn Rand Institute no mind.

It was when I saw how Diana Hsieh won entry into Ayn Rand Institute circles by publicly denouncing Nathaniel Branden, David Kelley, and, eventually, Chris Sciabarra, and how ARIans in their early 20s (not yet born when Rand died) were being recruited into 35-year-old personal feuds and succession struggles that I concluded that ARI was a genuinely bad organization with a poisonous internal culture. The modus operandi that Anne Heller refers to in that quotation should be entirely unacceptable to Objectivists and non-Objectivists alike.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

We've both had abundant experience with the veiled insulters.

It's been a little while since Ms. Stuttle's strategy of hanging around SOLOP and kissing up to Lindsay Perigo and Jim Valliant quit paying dividends.

Valliant has now made his final flounce from SOLO and Perigo occasionally mutters to himself in a corner.

Kissing up to George Smith shows much better taste than kissing up to either of the aforementioned.

But it is not much more likely to produce results that will satisfy Ms. Stuttle in the long term.

Robert Campbell

Citationniste Enragé

Guerrier sans Tête

PS. Ain't nothin' veiled goin' on here....

[Robert Campbell]

I give Ms. Stuttle due credit for pointing to the, umm, tension between the Peikovian doctrine of contextual certainty and the correspondence theory of truth.

Peikoff has a fairly good idea which pits not to step into, but the junior Peikovians are less careful.

And in OPAR, Peikoff makes the correlative claim that the same proposition can be arbitrarily asserted by you and non-arbitrarily asserted by me.

Suppose, for instance, that Leonard Peikoff were to say that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem pertains only to proofs with a finite number of steps.

Given Peikoff's richly documented ignorance of the Incompleteness Theorem, his assertion that it pertains to proofs with a finite number of steps would be arbitrary (as per his example of the "savage"' reciting "2+2=4").

And because arbitrary assertions are neither true nor false, Peikoff's assertion about the Incompleteness Theorem would consequently lack a truth value.

Whereas a metamathematician assserting that the Incompleteness Theorem pertains only to proofs with a finite number of steps would assert it non-arbitrarily.

And the same proposition as asserted by the metamathematician would be true.

Peikovian epistemology is necessarily inconsistent with the correspondence theory of truth.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Something is true or false, known or unknown. The doctrine of arbitrary assertion is arbitrary save for its usefulness in hiding argumentum ad hominem or one's own ignorance. That is, it's a smokescreen and a way of maintaining power and avoiding real arguments because your followers won't want to be accused of it. I'd prefer argument from intimidation here, and I think Rand herself was deeply into it, as well as argument from authority. He's her heir, all right.

--Brant

[Greybird]

I'm seeing a lot of cognitive dissonance on this thread. We have Robert saying in post #128 ...

[...] It was when I saw how Diana Hsieh won entry into Ayn Rand Institute circles by publicly denouncing Nathaniel Branden, David Kelley, and, eventually, Chris Sciabarra, and how ARIans in their early 20s (not yet born when Rand died) were being recruited into 35-year-old personal feuds and succession struggles that I concluded that ARI was a genuinely bad organization with a poisonous internal culture.

All of which is eminently true, by the way. I saw ARI trying to poison the outlook of those who were sparking their campus clubs program (now apparently abandoned) as early as 1985, when one of the campus leaders — an undergraduate at my alma mater — shared the "secret" ARI organizing manual with me.

Yet we then have Robert saying in the very next post, #129 ...

[...] It's been a little while since Ms. Stuttle's strategy of hanging around SOLOP and kissing up to Lindsay Perigo and Jim Valliant quit paying dividends.

Valliant has now made his final flounce from SOLO and Perigo occasionally mutters to himself in a corner.

Kissing up to George Smith shows much better taste than kissing up to either of the aforementioned.

But it is not much more likely to produce results that will satisfy Ms. Stuttle in the long term.

Apparently, recruiting people into "35-year-old personal feuds and succession struggles" is not acceptable. Doing so for the benefit of one's position in two-to-three-year-old feuds and struggles, though, seems to be allowed.

The psychologizing and ungermane character sniping that you decry at ARI, and rightly so, are nonetheless appropriate for use with your own personal opponents? Don't you see the irony, and the rhetorical "poison," in this?

Edited September 11, 2010 by Greybird

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

What organization is Robert trying to defend by excluding others?

None, as far as I know.

So I'm a bit confused at your standard and conceptual sloppiness.

Why not just say you like Stuttle and don't like it when she gets the same crap back that she dishes out?

I think that would be far more accurate than all this blah blah blah trying to fit pieces together that don't fit.

I have seen these kinds of posts of yours repeat often enough to realize that you are just as partisan as anyone you criticize.

I have no problem with your partisan nature. I do have a problem with double standards.

And frankly, when you harp on about a flare-up in this partisan manner of yours, I conclude that you actually like the schism stuff, despite your protestations.

Take a look at the quantity of posts you make about it. Nobody does it that much unless they like this stuff.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Something is true or false, known or unknown. The doctrine of arbitrary assertion is arbitrary save for its usefulness in hiding argumentum ad hominem or one's own ignorance. That is, it's a smokescreen and a way of maintaining power and avoiding real arguments because your followers won't want to be accused of it. I'd prefer argument from intimidation here, and I think Rand herself was deeply into it, as well as argument from authority. He's her heir, all right.

--Brant

I disagree with this analysis. The notion of the "arbitrary" plays a legitimate and significant role when analyzing judgments (or "assertions"), in contrast to abstract propositions where no claim is made regarding their truth or falsehood.

My approach to arbitrary assertions differs in some respects from the standard O'ist account, and not just in regard to whether or not arbitrary assertions are meaningless. Here is part of my discussion from Why Atheism (pp. 46f).

I have many beliefs, far more than I could possibly list, but only a fraction of these are of interest to others. I happen to believe that George Carlin is a funny guy, that basketball is more entertaining that baseball, that cats make better pets than dogs, that I look better in red than in green – the list goes on and on, but few people would want me to continue.

Beliefs can express our personal preferences and casual opinions about unimportant matters. But this is not always the case: a belief can also convey a knowledge claim, a judgment as to the truth of a proposition. If I say, for example, that I believe in the existence of God, I am also claiming that the proposition “God exists” is true -- that God does exist in fact.

Because this kind of belief has a cognitive content, because it embodies a claim to know on the part of the believer, I shall call it a cognitive belief. A cognitive belief is one in which the believer affirms the truth of a proposition. And since to affirm the truth of a proposition is to claim that one knows it to be true, a believer must be willing to justify his cognitive belief if he wishes others to take it (and him) seriously.

It is the assumption that a believer can justify his cognitive beliefs that commands the attention of other people. If I say that I believe in the existence of God, while making no effort to justify this belief, I have merely reported on my subjective state of mind; and this psychological report, though it may be of interest to me and my friends, has no cognitive value. It is like saying, “I feel lucky today.” If this is how I feel, good for me, but this feeling alone can oblige no one else to think or act differently than they would otherwise.

Merely to express a belief, while making no effort to justify this belief, is to do nothing more than issue a psychological report, or personal notation, about one’s state of mind. It may be true that I believe myself to be Napoleon, and this psychological observation may be of interest (or concern) to my friends and family, but my subjective belief per se has no cognitive value. The same applies if I happen to believe that I was Napoleon in a previous life. Or if I happen to believe that I am in telepathic communication with aliens from a distant galaxy. Or if I happen to believe that God is listening to my prayers. Or if I happen to believe that Jesus died for my sins.

Again, all such expressions of belief, when no effort is made to justify them, are nothing more than psychological reports of the believer’s state of mind. And to a believer who expresses his unjustified beliefs we might say: “Fine, good for you, believe as you like – but of what interest are your personal feelings and attitudes to me?”

...

If you want your beliefs to be taken seriously by others, then you must present them as something more than personal notations on your state of mind. It is only by giving reasons that you can free your beliefs from the bonds of subjectivity and earn the respect that comes from objectivity. A belief becomes objective when it is justified with reasons that can be examined and evaluated by others.

If you don’t want to subject your beliefs to this kind of critical review, then you should keep them to yourself....

Note that I never use the word "arbitrary" here, but that is what I am talking about.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> The psychologizing and ungermane character sniping that you decry at ARI, and rightly so, are nonetheless appropriate for use with your own personal opponents? Don't you see the irony, and the rhetorical "poison," in this?

I agree with Greybird, Robert, you can't constantly be taking bitter shots at "Stuttle" and then decry sniping at ARI.

Here's the rule: Lay off the personal attacks ENTIRELY. If you disagree with an idea of an opponent restrict yourself to completely rebutting that idea. Michael, you need to learn this yourself, instead of springing to R's defense.

Lay off the personal attacks ENTIRELY.

I mean what part of this or the reasoning behind it is unclear or difficult to you dudes????

[BaalChatzaf]

How sad, ridiculous, and pathetic. Why does Objectionism turn adults into children who lie to themselves that their personal issues are really epic metaphysical ones?

Perhaps Objectivism appeals to those who are inclined to be True Believers? It brings out the religious passions of folks, either positively or negatively. Or so it seems.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

> All of which is eminently true, by the way. I saw ARI trying to poison the outlook of those who were sparking their campus clubs program (now apparently abandoned) as early as 1985, when one of the campus leaders — an undergraduate at my alma mater — shared the "secret" ARI organizing manual with me.

Greybird, I was heavily involved in that program across multiple campuses and I didn't see this in my sphere. Can you be a bit more specific, give a couple concretes of what you are talking about? Maybe we're talking apples and oranges?

Specifically, what exactly did they do to 'poison the outlook'?

And what was in the secret manual? Have you been sworn to silence? Was there a recipe for marijuana brownies to be sold at campus events? What about Dean Wormer's plan for Double Secret Probation for those club leaders who had not memorized Galt's speech?

Edited September 11, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

You also are one who feeds on schism stuff. It would be interesting to quantify your posts in terms of theme. You should do it sometime. I guarantee it will be an eye-opener.

I know you harp on schism stuff because you like it, too, despite protestations to the contrary. It excites you.

Robert doesn't need to obey you here, though. He can say what he likes. So can Stuttle, for that matter. There's some dust from the past that needs to settle and time is taking care of it, but you and people like Steve love to keep this crap alive. (Not just you two, either.)

Just as soon as a flare-up happens, you guys are all over it and will derail any discussion to prolong discussing it. I've seen it time and time again. Like I said you guys feed on it. From what I have observed, you like the taste of schism and bickering far more than you like the taste of philosophy.

You guys also tickle me with your constant need to control others. I always think, when I see it, "Get a therapist, already!"

At least it's busybody neurotic control-freak kind of control, not bullying kind of control. Still, this has nothing to do with independent thinking and everything to do with trying to be the one who tells others what to do.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

I disagree with this analysis. The notion of the "arbitrary" plays a legitimate and significant role when analyzing judgments (or "assertions"), in contrast to abstract propositions where no claim is made regarding their truth or falsehood.

Yes, the Objectivist doctrine of the arbitrary is quite correct and useful.

If people want to insist that arbitrary statements do have meanings all that is necessary is to distinguish between denotation and connotation. An arbitrary statement may have a connotation, but it lacks a denotation. It may elicit unintegrated thoughts in your mind, but it corresponds to nothing (or if so, only by chance, like a broken clock) in reality.

[BaalChatzaf]

I disagree with this analysis. The notion of the "arbitrary" plays a legitimate and significant role when analyzing judgments (or "assertions"), in contrast to abstract propositions where no claim is made regarding their truth or falsehood.

Yes, the Objectivist doctrine of the arbitrary is quite correct and useful.

If people want to insist that arbitrary statements do have meanings all that is necessary is to distinguish between denotation and connotation. An arbitrary statement may have a connotation, but it lacks a denotation. It may elicit unintegrated thoughts in your mind, but it corresponds to nothing (or if so, only by chance, like a broken clock) in reality.

Many useful (and later empirically grounded) ideas in physics started off life as connotative concepts rather than denoting concepts. For example, the neutrino. Wolfgang Pauli proposed the neutrino as an artifact to save the conservation of momentum. It was actually found thirty years later by indirect experimental observation. Or, for example, displacement current which was not observed when Maxwell first proposed it, but was invented to save Ampere's law and remove a something from nothing type of anomaly from electrical circuits. The payoff was the production of radio waves by Hertz when he verified Maxwell's Equations thoroughly in 1887 (Maxwell had died prior to seeing his work completely vindicated experimentally). In order to get self perpetuating electrical and magnetic waves flying through space you need Maxwell's correction for the displacement current. Maxwell was motivated by considerations of mathematical completeness and symmetry. Another example: Einstein banished the aether since its presence implied an asymmetry not apparent in the phenomena. Read the first three pages of his 1905 paper on the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Aether was a connotative concept that physicists really and truly believed in during the 19th century. It was never observed then and it is not observed now.

And what would you call a resistive glow lamp before the first resistive glow lamp ever took shape. Is it an arbitrary concept? Is it a stolen concept? Or is it an idea that not only was potentially useful but turned out to be actually useful. Every invention in modern time came into being as an empirically ungrounded idea. It first existed as a character in a story that the inventor believed in.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

I disagree with this analysis. The notion of the "arbitrary" plays a legitimate and significant role when analyzing judgments (or "assertions"), in contrast to abstract propositions where no claim is made regarding their truth or falsehood.

Yes, the Objectivist doctrine of the arbitrary is quite correct and useful.

If people want to insist that arbitrary statements do have meanings all that is necessary is to distinguish between denotation and connotation. An arbitrary statement may have a connotation, but it lacks a denotation. It may elicit unintegrated thoughts in your mind, but it corresponds to nothing (or if so, only by chance, like a broken clock) in reality.

Many useful (and later empirically grounded) ideas in physics started off life as connotative concepts rather than denoting concepts. For example, the neutrino. Wolfgang Pauli proposed the neutrino as an artifact to save the conservation of momentum. It was actually found thirty years later by indirect experimental observation. Or, for example, displacement current which was not observed when Maxwell first proposed it, but was invented to save Ampere's law and remove a something from nothing type of anomaly from electrical circuits. The payoff was the production of radio waves by Hertz when he verified Maxwell's Equations thoroughly in 1887 (Maxwell had died prior to seeing his work completely vindicated experimentally). In order to get self perpetuating electrical and magnetic waves flying through space you need Maxwell's correction for the displacement current. Maxwell was motivated by considerations of mathematical completeness and symmetry. Another example: Einstein banished the aether since its presence implied an asymmetry not apparent in the phenomena. Read the first three pages of his 1905 paper on the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Aether was a connotative concept that physicists really and truly believed in during the 19th century. It was never observed then and it is not observed now.

And what would you call a resistive glow lamp before the first resistive glow lamp ever took shape. Is it an arbitrary concept? Is it a stolen concept? Or is it an idea that not only was potentially useful but turned out to be actually useful. Every invention in modern time came into being as an empirically ungrounded idea. It first existed as a character in a story that the inventor believed in.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob, those ideas are not arbitrary. They are based on the implications of exiting theories with evidentiary support.

[sjw]

How sad, ridiculous, and pathetic. Why does Objectionism turn adults into children who lie to themselves that their personal issues are really epic metaphysical ones?

Perhaps Objectivism appeals to those who are inclined to be True Believers? It brings out the religious passions of folks, either positively or negatively. Or so it seems.

Statism appeals to True Believers at least as much, and about 99% (say) of the world's population are members of that cult. "True believership" is a human condition it seems.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Something is true or false, known or unknown. The doctrine of arbitrary assertion is arbitrary save for its usefulness in hiding argumentum ad hominem or one's own ignorance. That is, it's a smokescreen and a way of maintaining power and avoiding real arguments because your followers won't want to be accused of it. I'd prefer argument from intimidation here, and I think Rand herself was deeply into it, as well as argument from authority. He's her heir, all right.

--Brant

I disagree with this analysis. The notion of the "arbitrary" plays a legitimate and significant role when analyzing judgments (or "assertions"), in contrast to abstract propositions where no claim is made regarding their truth or falsehood.

My approach to arbitrary assertions differs in some respects from the standard O'ist account, and not just in regard to whether or not arbitrary assertions are meaningless. Here is part of my discussion from Why Atheism (pp. 46f).

Look--if you want to disagree WITH ME please send me an email. I don't want people to know I don't know what I am talking about when I don't know what I am talking about!

--Brant

I'm fragile inside

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I believe the true believer thing stems from an epistemological habit that is built into our development.

We can only learn things about the world from 2 sources:

1. What we observe and experience and conclude.

2. What others tell us.

We spend a long time from infancy to adulthood relying mainly on what others (basically our parents and teachers) tell us as our main source of information.

If parents and teachers do not encourage their children to use their own minds to think independently, and that means independently of what they say, also, many of those children never develop the habit. They don't test their information much because the true-false line is blurred between what they experience and what is told to them by authority figures.

I have thought this over a lot and I have concluded that this is not due to some kind of malevolent choice not to think (although it can be in some cases). It just does not occur to many such people that they need to think independently, or even that they can, since they are well taken care of and functional by blindly following what they are taught as they grow up.

That's a bit of an oversimplification since no one is 100% one way or the other, but I think this is one of the main causes. It's really easy to manipulate a person who has not developed the habit of thinking independently if you find out how to become his or her authority figure--and that's how you get a true believer.

This even explains why some Objectivists want to blindly follow what Rand taught. They never broke free of the habit of relying predominantly on what they are told from an authority for what is true and false. They may give lip service to themselves for thinking independently, but all they have really done is replace their former outside authority(ies) for a new one.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

> The psychologizing and ungermane character sniping that you decry at ARI, and rightly so, are nonetheless appropriate for use with your own personal opponents? Don't you see the irony, and the rhetorical "poison," in this?

I agree with Greybird, Robert, you can't constantly be taking bitter shots at "Stuttle" and then decry sniping at ARI.

Here's the rule: Lay off the personal attacks ENTIRELY. If you disagree with an idea of an opponent restrict yourself to completely rebutting that idea. Michael, you need to learn this yourself, instead of springing to R's defense.

Lay off the personal attacks ENTIRELY.

I mean what part of this or the reasoning behind it is unclear or difficult to you dudes????

Ah, Phil, "the rule." You keep innocently pumping this stuff out. We know its innocent because you keep doing it year after year if not decades. If it wasn't you'd have stopped after being informed several times how wrong and silly it is and why, but it's obviously hardwired into your brain. If OL were a house we'd have to lock you up in the basement or attic when guests arrived, even though they may wonder at the muffled cries and thumping.

I know more clearly than most what is going on here. It involves Lindsay Perigo and Diana Hsieh teaming up on SOLOP over four years ago to gratuitously attack Chris Sciabarra as part of Diana's scrubbing herself clean enough of the wrong people for the benefit of her melding frictionlessly into the ARI orbit and crowd. This was an attempt to destroy Chris professionally by revealing private emails and effectively drove him off the Internet except for his own blog. Ellen then posting on SOLOP as if Linz were somebody worth having a serious detailed conversation with over time thus pisses off Robert as much as Linz himself, maybe more because Linz never posts on OL. Michael and Robert have essentially the same default position on Lindsay Perigo which is extremely negative. If Ellen gets seemingly out of line on anything here they personally care about she's going to get it in seemingly disproportion to the matter on the table. That's the cross she bears on OL; hence the ineffectiveness of Phil's "the rule" quite apart from its per se ineffectiveness.

--Brant

Edited September 11, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[9thdoctor]

Here's the rule: Lay off the personal attacks ENTIRELY. If you disagree with an idea of an opponent restrict yourself to completely rebutting that idea.

Or better, the moderator should be removing posts that say nothing more intelligent than:

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME !!!!?????

Jesus H. Christ!

Is he completely freakin' NUTS ?????????

All this poster did was attempt to “smuggle in” the idea that Peikoff is somehow deficient mentally, rather than calmly addressing his arguments.

One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand Phillogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.

HL Mencken (more or less)

[sjw]

A lot of truth in that Michael, especially this:

I have thought this over a lot and I have concluded that this is not due to some kind of malevolent choice not to think (although it can be in some cases). It just does not occur to many such people that they need to think independently, or even that they can, since they are well taken care of and functional by blindly following what they are taught as they grow up.

Underscore the "since they are well taken care of." Their needs are met by holding those of us who DO think at gunpoint, so they don't need to think. Not malevolent? We thinkers have a gun to our heads, but they're fat dumb and happy and "benevolent" and if you point out the gun it makes them uncomfortable. You're just an "angry" person. You need to "lighten up", "chill out dude", "relax."

Why should I, who decided to think, think that my slavemasters who decided not to think are not "malevolent"? I think they're acting like animals. It's true, they're no more malevolent than a bear -- they're hungry, they find game, they kill it and eat. Nothing malevolent. They're just dumb animals.

Edit: Who exactly am I referring to here? Anyone who, when you point out the violation of rights and consent inherent in our system, has the capacity to comprehend, and doesn't give a damn. And this includes a good fraction of Objectivists, many of whom are just useful intellectual idiots for the regime.

Shayne

Edited September 11, 2010 by sjw

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I agree with you about the gun stuff. That wasn't my point, though.

I was talking about mental development within a family (or small community) kind of environment, not an entire political structure.

As to that problem, I believe that fostering independent thinking is the only solution to making the political structure problem go away. Calling a person evil for not knowing something will not make him know it, nor will it solve any political problem.

Inducing him to think independently will.

Michael

[sjw]

Shayne,

I agree with you about the gun stuff. That wasn't my point, though.

I was talking about mental development within a family (or small community) kind of environment, not an entire political structure.

As to that problem, I believe that fostering independent thinking is the only solution to making the political structure problem go away. Calling a person evil for not knowing something will not make him know it, nor will it solve any political problem.

Inducing him to think independently will.

Michael

I agree with everything you're saying, was just adding my own related point. I certainly don't advocating calling someone evil for not knowing something. But I have noticed that a lot of people simply are evil, and by that I mean that you can point out "hey, there's a gun to my head", they indeed recognize it, and just don't care. Or, you can point out the vacuousness of Rand's ideas on patents (say), and you can point out the burden of proof principle in regards to government action against a 2nd inventor, and yet the Objectivist continues advocating patents anyway -- this is EVIL.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne,

I agree with you about the gun stuff. That wasn't my point, though.

I was talking about mental development within a family (or small community) kind of environment, not an entire political structure.

As to that problem, I believe that fostering independent thinking is the only solution to making the political structure problem go away. Calling a person evil for not knowing something will not make him know it, nor will it solve any political problem.

Inducing him to think independently will.

Michael

I agree with everything you're saying, was just adding my own related point. I certainly don't advocating calling someone evil for not knowing something. But I have noticed that a lot of people simply are evil, and by that I mean that you can point out "hey, there's a gun to my head", they indeed recognize it, and just don't care. Or, you can point out the vacuousness of Rand's ideas on patents (say), and you can point out the burden of proof principle in regards to government action against a 2nd inventor, and yet the Objectivist continues advocating patents anyway -- this is EVIL.

Let's say in the morass of extant statism one has to pick his battles and also say you are right about patents: isn't this issue a matter of not being very high up on any Objectivist priority list as opposed to EVIL? Patents yes or no? is one question. If no, that probably ends the discussion. If yes, there is the problem of distinguishing between ideas and things. I sure don't think ideas should be patented, but other than that I've hardly given the overall patent issue much thought except that the patent office is both confused and horribly backed up with applications because of defunding and arbitrary law divorced from the original philosophy. Everybody seems to be suing everybody regarding patent use and misuse. I suggest a less promiscuous use of "evil" until after a debate reveals it as a rational consequence of its advocacy. It's only valuable in that it reveals your personal conclusion, but most people, including Objectivists, simply haven't got there yet if they ever will. If you feel this strongly about patents you really should start a thread on it.

--Brant

Edited September 11, 2010 by Brant Gaede