Mike Renzulli

You are right, Chris. No one has a right to a job but it is a moral crime for Pizza Hut to deny any of its employees the ability to carry guns during the course of their employment. A friend of mine owned a pizza delivery business and encouraged his employees to carry guns because they carried large amounts of cash which would make them targets of criminals. I would suggest each of you not buy pizz from Pizza Hut anymore until they change their policy with regards to firearms. Also, here is a link to a website dedicated to helping the ex-Pizza Hut employee, named James Spiers, who defended himself: http://www.jamesspiershero.com/

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.../NEWS/804190326

Mine is Anthora. Shy, assertive, modest, a leader and responsible. http://www.goldencompassmovie.com/?973444

I realize that. However, Ms. Hsieh's tracts on Objectivist philosophy are excellent. The lecture series itself is superb. Hence, I have no problem having us listening to this lecture any more than buying books or CD's where the proceeds go to ARI (despite my disagreement with them). I also agree with Brant that ARI itself ain't all that bad. Some of the lectures ARI puts out are very interesting.

Don't get me started. I won't go into how the church turned its back on people who were abused as kids at the hands of parish priests. After all this time it finally comes to the forefront where he meets with them and promises changes to church policy. Time will tell if he is serious. During my Objectivist group's March meeting we had someone give a small speech after a lecture titled Religion is Child Abuse about his experiences as a Catholic seminarian who left the church in disgust after seeing, not only contradictions like you point out, but also the unquestioning obedience on the part of clergy to the Pope. As it turns out, this guy was drafted as a young man by priests at his parish into a holy order that Benedict has some affiliation with which is an ultra-orthodox faction that also supported him for election. I believe they are called The Legionaires of Christ. His sister is a nun associated with this order which this gentleman originally convinced to join but since his leaving has tried (and failed) to convince her to leave. Mainly due to someone debriefing her soon after the phone conversations he has with her. According to this gentleman, the M.O. of The Legionaires of Christ is to cut off recruits almost entirely from the outside world with little or no contact with the recruit's family. My dad is a former Catholic priest, BTW.

When: Thursday, April 24th, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. Where: Black Bear Diner 2410 West Bell Road Phoenix, AZ Admission: Attendees must buy something to eat. Event Description: For our first meeting at our new location and the last of the month, we will listen to the first in a six-part pre-recorded lecture series done by Diana Mertz-Hsieh titled: Objectivism 101 which was a lecture Mrs. Hsieh gave at The Atlas Society's Summer Seminar in 2003. Ayn Rand’s novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged offer a unique and inspiring moral vision, but translating those ideals into daily life can be challenging. Through a mixture of lecture and discussion, Diana Mertz Hsieh will survey the basic principles of Objectivism, from metaphysics to aesthetics. She will focus on both the theory and practice of the philosophy, contrasting it with common religious and cultural views. Ideas discussed in these six sessions will include reason as the only means to knowledge, free will as the choice to think or not, the integration of mind and body, emotions as automatic value judgments, life as the standard of value, the major virtues, the trader principle, capitalism as the only moral social system, and much more. Mrs. Hsieh is a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Kat, I can appreciate your live-and-let-live attitude with regards to people's lifestyles. Especially environmentalists who like to practice what they preach. However, I think the important thing to point out is that activism, like your friend is doing, is based on the assumption that humans are wasteful in terms of our consumption of the earth's resources and exist only to use the earth's resources without regard to the effects it has on the planet. As Objectivists we have to assert ourselves to stand AGAINST this very attitude since it is only geared to being an attack on the ability of human beings to sustain their lives and prosper too. Ex-Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore said it best: I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is the romanticization of peasant life. And the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world. The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human. Since Objectivism is an affirmation of human life and people are an end in itself we must stand against philosophies, like environmentalism, that treat people like a means to an end and persuade the rank-and-file that their cause is actually detrimental to their existence. Especially the people they claim to want to help. I apologize for the preachiness of this reply but, as you can see, I am passionate about this.

Upon clinching New Hampshire's delegates after the state's Republican primary concluded, John McCain made one crystal clear point in his victory speech that should even give any Objectivist pause: My friends, I learned long ago that serving only one's self is a petty and unsatisfying ambition. But serve a cause greater than self- interest and you will know a happiness far more sublime than the fleeting pleasure of fame and fortune. John McCain has obviously shown himself for the altruist that he is and if this part of his speech, his support of the Iraq war, and the numerous regulatory schemes he has helped push through in the Senate (like McCain-Feingold) are any indication, he obviously considers people as sacrificial animals for the needs of others. In this case the state or society. You would think a statement like this would come out of the mouth of someone like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. As a Vietnam veteran who was tortured by his captors McCain obviously has no regard for the lives of his fellow service men and women who have been wounded or killed in the middle east either. He has routinely voted to send U.S. armed forces to the conflicts they are or were in. He obviously loathes the lives and individual rights of the people he claims to serve: the American people. If he did he would have never voted to send U.S. troops to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, for the PATRIOT Act or to restrict speech in political campaigns. In my mind, these key points make McCain an evil man not worthy of support. Especially on the part of Objectivists.

YOU GO, GIRL! Mygirlfriend and I went out that evening and left the lights at our house on that we normally do (i.e. outside lights and interior lights that go on automatically). I also think your home looks awesome!

All, I just recieved some bad news. As it turns out, Alliance for the Seperation of School and State and Advocates for Self-Government founder Marshall Fritz has been diagnosed with a terminal form of pancreatic cancer. Doctors have given him 6-20 months to live and he has about a 50/50 chance of living one year. The Advocates for Self Government is going to throw an event for him in Atlanta, Georgia where he will give his final speech as well as say goodbye. Details here: http://www.TheAdvocates.org/marshall-celebration.html A very sad moment for liberty if I do say so myself.

No protectionism was practiced before then. I can't find anything on protective tariffs enacted by Adams but I believe he did enact a numer of internal taxes in order to support the mercantilist system he tried to erect. I remember from the Thomas Jefferson PBS special that Jefferson scrapped much of the taxes and many departments enacted by Adams. By doing so, I believe many states controlled by Federalists in the northeast threatened to seceed hence, Jefferson backed off of scrapping it all as evidenced by the National Bank still in existence when he was President.

I am reading this book and it is very well done. I have almost all of Dr. Branden's books. I like The Art of Living Consciously the best. However, this and his other books are well written too.

Okay, I have read alot on the internet about the dispute between David Kelley and Leonard Piekoff with regards to which of the 2 men's interpretations regarding Objectivism is correct. While I side with Kelley, I would like to get more information about where he is coming from. Specifically, does Kelley call for changing the philosophy itself or does he and others in this side of the movement state we should keep the core principles but the other aspects of the philosophy be modified here and there to keep up with reality? Someone please briefly summarize where Piekoff and Kelley are coming from. I am getting the impression that Kelley isn't calling for the changing of anything regarding Objectivism. However, he had no problem interacting with Libertarians (that Piekoff and ARI prohibit) or anyone like-minded. Please clarify. Its very interesting that the Kelley-Piekoff split happened since it reminds me of what happened during the Reformation when you had dissenters in the church openly disagree with and question the Pope and the Catholic Church hierarchy. I could not help but notice the similarities being that I have a large background in religion.

Hey Everyone, Those of you who are interested, I just finished reading (what I consider to be) the best of the recent books on atheism in print. Its called God: The Failed Hypothesis authored by Victor Stenger who is a physicist with the University of Hawaii. Essentially, what Dr. Stenger does is subjects the claims about God to the scientific/peer review method and demonstrates how God doesn't exist based on the evidence people point to for the deity's existence and how the claims don't stand up to true scrutiny. He also does the same for other paranormal phenomenon (like psychics). While Dawkins said the existence of God is "very highly unlikely", Stenger gives a definite NO. Stenger also makes some good, non-scientific arguments against the existence of God too that I hadn't thought of. If you are agnostic, have questions about the existence of God or think he/she/it exists, I doubt you can hold off on being an atheist anymore after reading this excellent book.

It was but as one poster pointed out it was for revenue purposes and not out of a concern for people's health. Sadly, much of the crap science about second hand smoke is also being used to justify regulation and prohibition of tobacco too. I wasn't aguing for an illegal substance I was pointing out what happened when illegal substances were created as a result of the illegality of them. In this case alcohol and relating it with crystal meth. As far as regulation of crystal meth, it would and should not be because if all drugs are decriminalized crystal meth would cease to exist since consumers would automatically gravitate toward drug products that were produced by companies that would be safer than anything made on the streets.

Judith, If your talking in terms of protecting animals that are owned then property laws protecting them from damage or harm are appropriate. However, Objectivism holds HUMAN life on this Earth as the standard of all of its values. Not animals. To do so otherwise (no offense intended) is to go against the philosophy itself (i.e. trying to have your cake and eat it to). {quote}(*snort*) Obviously neither he nor you has ever trained a dog or a horse. Or, at least not by any means that recognized the animal's true capacities. You might be fascinated sometime to watch a horse trying to figure out just what the rider is trying to impart when teaching higher level dressage to the horse. The horse really does have to "figure it out". Or, you might be fascinated sometime to watch the face of a dog watching his or her person and deciding on whether or not to do something forbidden. I'd not argue that they're capable of philosophical discourse, or of inventing gods, but anyone who says animals don't use simple concepts isn't looking at what's right in front of them. I am sure what you are saying is the case but would dare to argue that what you point out is due to animal instincts and their training. While humans have to be trained, the one major advantage we have is the capacity of reason and logic. Animals do not have such capacity as they have no intelligence beyond what their instincts tell them. Also, an animal would not value your life and would have not think twice about eating you if it needed sustenance.

In terms of humans it is true that we have the CAPACITY of predation but thanks to our reasoning minds and the ability to acquire knowledge we do not have to. Many people prefer to be vegetarians and thanks to science we can make substances that can replace many of the meats humans consume, thereby enabling us not to kill animals for consumption. I disagree since Objectivism is about human life being the standard of all values and people being an end in itself. If one thinks about it (which I am sure you and many on these boards do) and you take into account my previous comment about rights depend on a humans ability of rational thought. Animals have no such capacity therefore they do not deserve special protections. I think this is where Locke is coming from. Agreed.

Howard, We have meth and other dangerous drugs as a result of prohibition of drugs. When alcohol was illegal many dangeous, home made alcoholic drinks were produced resulting in many deaths associated with their use. Once the 18th Amendment was abolished home made drinks (like moonshine) vanished. If narcotics, like meth, were legal they would also go by the wayside too. As to your legal sanctions argument, it can also result in social engineering and violation of private property via the courts similar to how the socialists are using them against fast food restaurants and gun manufacturers. Smoking is dangerous but the science behind second hand smoke is hogwash. Even still, let property owners and not politicians and bureaucrats what smoking policies restaurants and bars should have.

I guess Barbara is busy so I will step in to directly answer your question. You are correct that Objectivists oppose laws against protections for animals short of protecting them via property laws. Like environmentalists put nature as their highest value and anti-abortionists put fetuses as their highest value, animal rights activists put animal life as theirs. If you follow their logic to its consistent conclusions, even the acts of terrorism they conduct against laboratories, fur stores, meat companies, leather shops and fast food restaurants are the result. As Dr Edwin Locke of the Ayn Rand Institute points out, unlike humans, "Animals do not survive by rational thought. They only survive through reflexes and sonsory perception association. They cannot reason. Predation, and not reason, is an animals only means of survival and they do not have the capacity to learn any other." Rights depend on man's ability of rational thought. Animals are devoid of any such ability. Therefore, animals are not deserving of special protections.

I appreciate John Adams for the work he did as a revolutionary against the British. However, as a President he was terrible! I believed he built and expanded upon Washington's policies (like the national bank, internal improvements and high tariffs) and signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law as well. His philosophy was similar to Hamilton's in that he wanted the United States to be just like England.

While I wish you luck, I was a Republican for about 4 years active in the party and after my brief stint concluded that the Republicans were not interested in furthering libertarian ideas at all. Its all about holding and maintaining power. Actually, if libertarians were to be involved in a major party, the clear choice would, historically speaking, be the Democrats. For many years the Democrats were the libertarian party in this country since, aside from the slavery issue, the Democrats were considered the good guys they embraced the ideals of Jefferson and Jackson. The Republicans were the monarchists who wanted the U.S. to be just like England. Lincoln especially subscribed to this idea. In Arizona we are attempting to recruit Ron Paul supporters to join the LP since the RNC leadership would shaft Ron Paul big time if he was to win the majority of delegates. I think Ron Paul has taken some notable stances and, by and large, think he is an honest man. However, the reality is, Republicans campaign like libertarians but once elected, govern like Democrats. Ron Paul supporters would be better suited to be Libertarians. However, ultimately, they have to follow their own political path.

Actually Life of Brian was the subject of numerous protests and accusations of blasphemy by religious-oriented groups and the Monty Python team who tried to get it filmed and released ran into a number of hurdles to do so. You can read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python&...emy_accusations

Hello Everyone, I hope everyone is doing well. Despite my political and philosophical activities in real life, I happened upon a web-based game that might satisfy the addiction those on this discussion board have for politics and the legislative process. I am a member of a game called Politics Canada which is a simulation game based on the Canadian Parliament. While I prefer the Congress of the U.S. as the government body I prefer to live under, as far as web-based games, I have played quite a few and find this to be the best out of many of the government simulation games I have played. Also, I think a game based on the U.S. Congress is not feasable since it ends up being like a parliamentary game rather than one based on the Congress. I also have not been able to find a simulation game based on the U.S. Congress anyway. In the game you can sign up for one of the game's parties, introduce legislation, debate and discuss issues. I am a Liberal MP in the game and participating in it is quite an experience since, as opposed to the U.S. Congress where members can introduce their own individual bills with or without party leadership approval, in the Canadian parliament system, the emphasis is on the party and if your proposal is not acceptable to leadership it will go nowhere fast. The purpose of the game is to achieve and maintain power and it can be done entirely with the party (if it has enough MPs elected) or the party can go into coalition with one of the smaller parties who have seats in the House of Commons to satisfy the seat requirement to form a government. You can also work to obtain and maintain power in the party you participate in as well. The Liberals are presently in power. However, since they do not have a majority in parliament, the Liberals are in coalition with the New Democratic Party. Unfortunately, due to the recession the country is in and the arrangement we have with the NDP, the ideas I am trying to float in the Liberal caucus (which are along libertarian lines) are not being embraced. The Liberal leadership is being very cordial with me and (IMHO) is sympathetic with what I want to accomplish but at this time feels that it would not be politically feasable to enact the ideas I espouse. If a simulation game like this is of interest to you, please do join me. A link to the game is below and if you do decide to participate, please join the Liberals. I had thought about joining the Progressive Conservatives at first but they are of the Red Tory flavor where the favor some welfare statism, imperialism and stronger relations with England as opposed to the Blue Tories who tend to be more libertarian. The Liberals (while not consistently libertarian) tend to want to distance themselves from The Crown, want more home-rule for the country and provinces (like Quebec where the party got started) and tend to support free trade policies. I am what would be considered a "business Liberal" in that I embrace much of the classical liberal ideas of individual liberty and free markets that the party was based on. Small, minor parties, like the religious-oriented Social Credit Party has MPs but they and the socialist New Democrats have had their party numbers capped. The game is fun, fascinating and very educational at the same time. I hope you will consider joining. http://www.politics-canada.net/

Hey All, Just wanted to check in and say "hello"! I hope all is well in these parts and will be logging in to post as time permits. FWIW, I have linked to OL at my group's website. I am still busy trying to change the world with my group and (slowly but surely) we will ge there! I hope you all had a great holiday season and will talk to you all soon! Mike

WHEW!!! This takes a load off of my mind and thanks for clearing this up, Michael. Jim Peron made a brief stop in Arizona prior to moving to Germany. I had interacted with him on numerous occasions while he was here. I was impressed with his intellect and did believe his side of the story, there was this nagging feeling I had that Peron might have been hiding something since at times (though admittedly rare) I felt he acted oddly. I think Jim Peron may have handled the whole affair badly or tried to recall the events as best he could but his critics ended up using his statements against him. He and I did get into a small tiff on an e-mail list a few years back and I lost contact with him. I found out that he is working for ISIL as I called Laissez Faire Books 800 number a few weeks go and he answered the phone. Fortunately, the matter that lead to our disagreement didn't come up and our conversation was cordial and friendly. Here are the incorrect parts: 1. Peron was not "outed as a supporter of pedophilia." He was formally accused of being one and set up, with his reputation trashed and renewal of his visa refused by the New Zealand government as punishment. 2. I have examined most all of the documentation that has been available online (and some not so available, like the single copy—not "copies"—of the magazine Unbound), and I have concluded that Peron indeed was set up for political reasons by some really nasty people playing power games. Much of the online stuff has been taken down, but I have copies of most of what had been available . Also, The Wayback Machine still records a lot of it. 3. If anyone follows the thread Rowlands linked to (Rumors About Linz started by Jeff Riggenbach), he will see that there was not only the outpouring of hatred he mentioned against the accusers, but there was a similar outpouring of hatred by the accusers (and their sympathizers) against Peron supporting the smear that he was a pedophile. (I am ashamed to admit that I was a sympathizer in the second category. I have since apologized to Jim Peron for that. I have not done so in public out of respect for his wishes, but since Rowlands has made this a public issue again, I want it on record that I deeply regret supporting the disgusting lynching that took place.) Just as it is shocking that Objectivists would seemingly tolerate "child-rape" under the guise of "age of consent," so it is equally shocking that a person can be so easily smeared on such flimsy evidence in the name of Objectivism. Those who practice this pervert Objectivism and all it stands for. 4. Briefly, what happened was that over 20 years ago, Peron owned a libertarian bookstore in San Francisco that was a hotbed of radical ideas. Lots of people flowed through there and he supported anything subversive that smelled like pro-freedom. Back then, he allowed a pedophilic organization to hold some meetings on the premises. Age of consent was a hot topic at the time and they, obviously, did not advertise themselves as a group of pedophiles. They talked the talk of the times in their negotiations. Peron's printing press published at least one issue of that organization's magazine. He was asked to contribute an article and he did, relating his personal problems growing up with beatings from his father and kindness from strangers. It had nothing at all to do with pedophilia per se. But this article was touted as the smoking gun because it appeared in that magazine. The fact that, shortly after that time, he asked the group to move on, etc., was not taken into account. 5. Nothing at all of substance from recent times was presented about Peron. It was all old stuff from two decades ago and totally inconclusive, even taken at face value. 6. The so-called "investigators" were a group of Christian conservatives who formed an ad hoc organization at the time called the Locke Foundation. Its sole purpose was to dig up dirt on Peron and present it to the New Zealand government, although it purported to have some kind of intellectual mission. Shortly after the splash and the ensuing government action, the foundation was disbanded. It only existed actively for a very short time. 7. For the record, I do not adhere to a low age of consent threshold, and I don't know hardly anyone who does (including Jim Peron himself, who emphatically does not adhere). I agree with Rowlands only on the following point: Objectivist ideas should not be used to endorse child-rape. But then, that is a no-brainer. What took place in New Zealand and reiterated on SoloHQ was an orchestrated smear job. It worked, too, especially with people who do not look at facts, but prefer to repeat what they are told (like what just occurred in Rowlands's recent post). Well I have seen the facts up close and in detail. What they did to Jim Peron stinks. I stake my name on it. To keep this issue to a low public noise level so the smear cannot grow further qua smear, I will be glad to present the information I have by email to anyone asking for it (in good faith, meaning so they can look at the facts and see for themselves, too). Michael