Mike11

I came across this earlier on another board - I am curious to know what you guys think of it. In it she talks about business owners owing a debt to society based on the public paying for services they require such as roads and education, what is the Objectivist take on that?

Excellent article.

As you can tell, most of it was over my head. Just writing what struck me.

Cost for Him: Minimum Cost for Me: Maximum I would live a longer and happier life. Perhaps in the Bahamas.

1) I always got the vibe that conservative Xian Capitalists dislike welfare not so much because of an attribution error - the poor are lazy - but because it is a secular program that challenges their role as sole provider of social assistance and charity (therefore power). The same reason the "Brotherhood" is hostile to the secular Arab state (among others). 2) This is off topic but I always got the sense the "Left" sees a different 'sin'. Conservatives see the issue as indulgence, Liberals as one of exploitation. The latter I think is more unchristian but by encouraging it they ensure a place for themselves in America - once they get rid of those pesky unions, medicare, social security and the like.

I read somewhere that the founder was on LSD when he had his first vision. Which is perfect. If Acid had a faith, this would be it It is likely just another publicity stunt, a few years ago they claimed to have cloned a human and our fearless mainstream media gobbled the ploy up hook, line, and sinker.

This thread delivered the lulz. Joel (the one with the problem)

Holy shit Volco, you're still alive?

Way ahead of you. Remember Osama's second TV appearance where he said a Democrat victory would be a Sharia victory? Republican sound stage in Texas. And to prove my left wing credentials, I half believe that.

The rest of you have experienced this sort of thing in your lifetimes. The JFK assassination, the shooting of Rabin by a Jewish extremist (etc) but this is the first figure to die in my lifetime who truly made an impact. It is strange that in the past 10 years every international event has revolved around his name in some way yet his death seems meaningless. The Islamic world is still Islamic and the Imperialist world is still Imperialist. Despite all the coverage and spin this is going to get, nothing will change with his death.

Selene, this is why the relative uniformity of opinion in the group surprised me, Pagans I have met tend to have really diverse beliefs.

What you describe has been key in creating the peaceful Canada I live in. The French and English were bitterly, hatefully divided. Had a strong State existed us Anglos would have inflicted an injury worthy of any European ethnic cleansing. This is why we value a federal system that gives the provinces and ethnic groups a great deal of political power. It is the only way we can work together, unfortunately when us Anglos hold the power in Canada we tend to break things. Have you ever been to Canada, is it at all similar to Brazil?

Dear Baal, While I disagree with you I find your post edifying and insightful into the perfectly pure, concise mind of one who values Blood & Honour. I am grateful for the chance to see that the Holocaust is not restricted by any Orthodox interpretation but rather invites a flowering of Jewish thought and can indeed be remembered as a Heroic moment in your adopted Aryan heritage. In Admiration, Joel Mac Donald

Wow. Thank you! That was one heck of an answer. You've given me a lot of sources, a lot of information and a lot to think about. If you look at the topic subtitle you'll see I acknowledge going out of my depth here so it's going to take me a while to really chew through the sources and connect the dots. That said, if you I read you right, and I very well may not be, you're stating a fundamental uncertainty toward the future which I believe is what Rand had to say as well.

The feelings of humiliation in the Muslim world are well known. Islam is a political religion and at heart its validity in the mind of its practitioner is its success in the real world. Mohammed himself (peace and atheist blessings be upon him) told his people that the proof of Allah's message lay in the striking successes of the Islamic Arabs. Islam did not grow up in a vacuum however and its admiration for the West has had a major impact. Muhammad Abduh was educated in Paris and Nasser learned socialism in a Kibbutz. Islam began with a strong spirit of religious toleration, open to the People of the Book and aggressively assimilated the wisdom of Hindu, Chinese and Greek cultures. They embraced the spirit of public debate in matters of Sharia Law which acted to restrain the State on liberal principles, attacking harsh taxes (on the grounds that they were bad for business) and safe guarding property rights of the People. The early Bedouin, the heart and soul of Islam, were quasi-democratic and by and large the Arabs resented the intrusions of Absolute Monarchy. Because of this, one hundred years ago the vast majority of Arab, Turkish and Persian intellectuals were democratic, western reformers who saw our system as ideal to the revival of the pure Islam experienced in the Golden Age of the four Rightly Guided Caliphs. Even after the destruction of this movement at the hands of British and French guns the Arab Socialists would continue to look to the West to find political systems which matched Islamic teachings and history. What can be done to repair this relationship which brought us Aristotle and Avicenna, and gave them Paine and Marx? Hint: Not the OP

Last night I spent trolling Objecti- err wait, last night I was at the local Beltaine festivities and thought I would throw out a question to see how Pagan morality relates to Christian morality. The question I posed was this - "Suppose someone who shared the Pagan path informed you that their god or tradition compelled them to take an action you considered highly immoral. What sort of issues would you bring up if you chose to respond?" What shocked me was despite the groups apparent heterodoxy the responses were virtually identical. 1) Everyone told me they would certainly bring up their objections and not sit by in moral relativism. 2) The moral law, whatever its nature (different people gave different sources for morality from Altruism to Common Sense, to Self Interest), is above and beyond the gods. The gods are not the ultimate moral authority but struggle with moral questions as well. One pagan pointed out he does not Pray to god but merely Talks to him. To quote Frances Schaeffer, the Pagan gods are amplified humanity, not Divinity. 3) Gods and traditions are always questioned. If Aeries tells you to break someone's legs, question and attack that instruction the same way you would any human. The god may budge. 4) If the God persists you had the right to say no. They do not control the after life nor do they control you. 5) If you did the deed anyway it is still your responsibility. Because all paths and gods are real you are responsible for choosing that path and god as well as not changing the path you're on. They believed every human being discovers morality for themselves and no god or path can act as a shield for your conscience or responsibility. I. Love. Pagans.

FrontPageMeg, You get what you pay for. Or wait, that's a bit harsh wasn't it? Umm I find this article's argument simplistic, selective in its source material and self serving. Err, that might be too much... Islam is not on the offensive, it is - eek, definitely do no want to say that. *yawn* I guess is the best response.

If you define Modernism as a belief in inevitable progress leading to an ideal end point - the classless society or prefect liberal democracy for example, is Rand Post Modernist? She did believe in the dialectic struggle between Egoism and Altruism but did she believe this struggle would come to an end? She wrote about Galt's society in which the struggle ended with a final victory for Egoism but did she really believe such was possible and if so was it inevitable in the same sense Marxists saw the end of history?

You know a google search of "Ontario Libertarian Party scandal" does not even bring any relevant news. We are one .... boring ... country. Said it before and I'll say it again. Last time the Leafs won Jerusalem was Arab. Habitants! Habitants! Habitants!

Threads get hijacked all the time here, this is one of those times. MSK is actually someone online I respect, if he were in town I'd buy him a beer. So when he called me out on being hateful on the internet, and I appreciate his qualification there, I decided to look through my posts over the past 90 days. I only come here about 15 minutes a week (in fact this post chewed up more time than I give this place in a month), he's correct in assuming I don't put much stock in my involvement or reputation here. Pippi probably posted more in a week than I have in, what, the last three years or so? If I have actually spent most of my infrequent posts turning this place into a toxic environment, that's unfortunate as MSK runs a decent house that I'm a guest in. As an Objectivist himself I can see why he's puzzled that I really don't treat this place as an Objectivist forum. Someone (I think Michael Campbell but I'm not sure) said that the term Objectivist has been taken over by the ARI and so the forum members would have to call themselves Neo or Post-Objectivists. I agree in a stronger way. I don't consider Peikoff's ideas to be a corruption of Objectivism but rather its natural conclusion. So when I hear intelligent interesting comments from forum members I consider them as Infidel would consider a rational Muslim - the poster is rational to the extent that the poster is not an Objectivist (ironic, given as I consider Infidel wrong about Muslims). I read a lot of interesting content on here, from an intelligent perspective. It is common for people to assume that those he disagrees with are corrupt, idiotic, deceitful, hateful and evil. Coming to this site reminds me that even though this community tends to believe things I do not - the nature of Israel, Global Warming, Capitalism (etc) - non-leftists are not the irrational swarm us left wingers would like to consider them. So looking at my posts I find they fit into a very simple, Black & White dichotomy. Particularly when the person I am addressing fits what I consider to be a "randroid". There are numerous one line quips from me regarding my opinion of Ayn Rand and the violence of the ARI. I don't think these were too far off base. Note, this post in which I pretty bluntly state the connection in my mind between Objectivism and brutality which Ba'al, who is an Objectivist, proudly agreed with. Posts from Pippi and Infidel got the same treatment for the same reasons. Honestly from the tenor of most attack posts on here these were pretty bloody light. People attack the integrity and self esteem of other posters here every day, I've not indulged in that to nearly the same extent. The second kind of posts were far more lengthy and are the posts cared about. Some examples - The Multiculturalism thread sparked some interesting debate (despite some unwarranted assumptions from you about my illiteracy), and was posted for the same reason I read OL - to get the other side's opinions. The thread on property rights posted by Selene got some positive feed back for my posts. The thread on Israel/Palestine actually got a response from you in which I think we both learned something. It is clear from the length of the second kind of posts relative the first kind I am not here to hate you, I am here to learn about this group's opinions. I will however continue to behave the same way the members of this forum have - giving one liners where and when I feel amused or ticked enough to do so and engaging in worth while conversations where and when I feel the need. Oh, and MSK I will also say this. Generally speaking on most forums, when a forum moderator has a issue with a member, PM's about a particular issue are preferred to speculation about the member's life and character. Run your ship as you see fit, it just strikes me that your method here is pretty presumptuous and, to the limited extent I care, insulting.

This is a lot more than an "Objectivist" site as far as I can tell. Its actually the only right wing site I've found with a fair amount of common sense and interesting content. I could spend my time online at left wing echo chambers but I like learning what the other side thinks more.

Last time I checked, David Vecksler ran the outfit. You know part of OO's problem is they have never had a significant number of non ARI Objectivists on the site. If this thread leads to an invasion of informed opinion and good sense it would go a long way over there.

The first debate was pretty even in terms of the quality of the debaters. They both showed an ability to use both abstract and historic arguments and both had a fair wit. It is significant that they retained eye contact through most of it. Brook in my mind is defending the incorrect view but he was convincing enough to make me reexamine my beliefs. The second debate was a gruesome massacre that was painful to watch. The moderator was out to lunch during most of it, allowing a random degeneration into petty interruptions and arguments every 2 minutes. Even though I agreed with most of Berber's argument he came across as an arrogant douchebag. The nature of a debate forces you to respect your opponent, not treat him as a toy you can waste everyone's time screwing around with. Despite his better grasp on reality, and even Rand than Binswanger can boast I found him the more annoying person to listen to. Binswanger came across as a spineless wimp. His damn near apologetic tone when called out for working in a cult, while shockingly honest, did nothing to help his case. He was visibly nervous, almost scared throughout the debate. He also came across as an idiot. Remember, first they built roads, then they built hospitals then ZOMG AUSCHWITZ. Is he not aware of this minor place called "The rest of the bloody planet" and in this place called "The rest of the bloody planet" many countries have universal health care and a strange lack of death camps? I could not take him seriously at all. I don't think he even understood the issue of an extreme inequality of means affecting the equality of opportunity, let alone effectively dealt with it. I have no idea what planet he lives on. "Sure, you might be a single mom with cancer working two jobs to pay for rent and baby food but you were free to get a third job for medical insurance. Also, while your 8 year old is free to spend 8 hours in school to become Galt in a few decades he is also free to scrub my floors for 2 bucks an hour. Remember how close your are to eviction you stupid bitch", seems to be his attitude. When was the last time Binswanger met any of the poor people he plans on screwing over?

Do they seriously think that? Talk about Unwarranted Self Importance. As for the next two AS movies I hope they come out. I have crates full of tomatoes waiting. Not saying I am sure I will loathe the movie as much as the book, I'm just saying I'm sure I will loathe the movie as much as the book.