Donovan A.

Update: The entire Basic Principles of Objectivism Series (Lectures 1-20) is now available as a single downloadable item. $140.00 Thank you. The Culture of Reason Center Resources for Rational Minds!

Dear Fellow Students of Objectivism, I'm proud to announce that Raymond Newman's 1980 Interview with Ayn Rand is now available for purchase through The Culture of Reason Center web-store. You can download this rare interview in MP3 format for only $3.95 A free audio sample of this wonderful product is available on the cart page. RAYMOND NEWMAN'S 1980 INTERVIEW WITH AYN RAND In this newly released interview made in 1980 at her home in New York, Ayn Rand talks with Ray Newman about the essential principles of her philosophy, Objectivism; how the virtue of selfishness is prescribed by man’s nature; why the question “What is the purpose of life?” is an improper one; her standards for judging the morality of others, including family; and much more. Listen as Miss Rand identifies the fundamental conflict between the American and European sense of life and the missing ingredient to America’s near-perfect politics. Estimated run time: 56 minutes. All material in this program is protected by copyright and may not be reproduced in any form. This product is sold only for the personal use of the purchaser and may not be played before an audience without written permission from the producer: Ramond Newman. Permission to offer this product has been given from Raymond Newman who holds the copyright.

Molyneux is not rehashing Rand. He is very far from Objectivism. Moral beliefs, in order to rise above mere opinion, must be applicable to everyone. There is no logically consistent way to say that Person A must do X, but Person Y must never do X. Morality is not intrinsic or subjective. Morality is a code of principles accepted and applied in a specific context. For any action to acquire moral significance requires volition. Rationality, honesty, independence, integrity, justice, productiveness, pride all require and imply choice. All of these virtues are means of obtaining specific values in specific contexts. Productiveness is a virtue, when you are the beneficiary. It is not a virtue to be productive to materially support the Nazi war machine. If an action is termed "good," then it must be good for all people. If I classify the concept "mammal" as "warm-blooded," then it must include all warm-blooded organisms – otherwise the concept is meaningless. This is interesting, I thought there is no such thing as concepts (abstractions)! "Remember – there is no such thing as "a policeman" or "a soldier" – those are mere concepts." Aside from that contradiction, where is a definition of good? By what standard can one judge what is good or evil according to Molyneux? The concept "good" must thus encompass the preferred behaviour for all people – not just "Orientals" or "Policemen" or "Americans." If it doesn’t, then it’s just an aesthetic or cultural penchant, like preferring hockey to football, and loses any power for universal prescription. Thus if it is "good" for a politician to use force to take money from you and give it to me, then it is also "good" for anyone else to do it. Good behavior by what standard? What is good behavior! A simple rebuttal from any devil's advocate would be: Okay, I think it is good to steal. If being paid to go and shoot someone is wrong for a hit man, then it is also wrong for a soldier. Molyneux is dropping context. A hit man initiates force. A soldier (operating in a moral government context) is defending rights and property, he is initiating force in retaliation. Molyneux is treating force as intrinsically evil, the result will be pacifism. If breaking into a peaceful citizen’s house, kidnapping him and holding him prisoner is wrong for you and me, than it is also wrong for the agents of the DEA. In what context? Is it immoral to put criminals in prison? Thus a man who defends state welfare programs, for instance, can only do so on the grounds of personal preference, but he cannot claim that it is moral. In fact, he must admit that, on the basis of any universal principles, the welfare state is immoral, since if it is wrong for anyone to steal, then it is also wrong for everyone to steal – including politicians! Molyneux still has not defined the good, other than by acting consistently. Although it's true that one cannot sustain one's own life by consistently sacrificing himself, one can consistently sacrifice others. On what grounds does Molyneux conclude that morality must be applied universally? If owning guns is bad, then it is bad for everyone. Guns, then, should be banned. Thus policemen and soldiers must give up their weapons. Let's take a look at this logic. If eating strawberries is bad (because I am allergic) then eating them is bad for everyone. If it's good to drive 200 mph on a racetrack, then it's good for everyone to drive 200 mph on the way to work. Remember – there is no such thing as "a policeman" or "a soldier" – those are mere concepts. Only people exist, and if gun ownership is a good idea for a soldier, but a bad idea for a private citizen, what happens to the soldier when he goes on leave? Does his nature change somehow, so that now he no longer has the right to own a gun? What about when a policeman changes out of his uniform? Does he change in some fundamental manner, and so loses the right to be armed? Is it only his uniform that has the right to carry a gun? What if someone else puts on that uniform? Of course, these questions cannot be answered, and so the whole argument for gun control becomes logically foolish. No such thing as a policeman? How about a teacher? How about a parent? How about philosopher? These are mere concepts! How about owning a nuke in a basement? Why not? How about putting explosive mines in one's front yard? If you can do it in war, why not in peace time? Notice what happens when morality is not clearly defined, anything goes. Molyneux has no more reason to argue for peace than for violence. As a matter of fact, it would be more rational and more consistent for him to argue for violence, since in nature (in the jungle) the rule of force is obvious. I'll be back later on to tackle what Molyneux has to say about War, Minimum Wage, Government Parks, Drugs and The State.

Would anyone like to assist me in an analysis the arguments presented in this paper by Stefan Molyneux? http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux7.html I have a friend that refereed me to this paper and I find it to be in principle a total rejection of Objectivism, both epistemologically and ethically. I'd like to point out a few examples and if I have time later on, I will contribute more. "1. Nothing exists except people. There is no such thing as "the government," or a "country," or "society." All these terms for social aggregations are merely conceptual labels for individuals. "The government" never does anything – only people within the government act. Thus the "government" – since it is a concept – has no reality, ethical rights or moral standing. Moral rules apply to people, not concepts. If anyone argues with you about this, just ask them to show you their "family" without showing you any individual people. They’ll get the point." This is mistaken, "government" is a valid concept, just as "people" and "society" are valid concepts. I'm sure that this person has read Ayn Rand and does not understand what she meant when she said: "Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominant ethics of mankind's history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some higher authority, either mystical or social. Consequently, most political systems were variants of the same statist tyranny, differing only in degree, not in basic principle, limited only by the accidents of tradition, of chaos, of bloody strife and periodic collapse. Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter—and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man's earthly existence. Since there is no such entity as "society," since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience—on the implicit principle of: "The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler's edicts are its voice on earth." - Ayn Rand, CUI - Appendix: Man's Rights. One should not interpret this statement by Rand to mean that society, i.e., "groups of people" do not exist. Society is an abstraction. "Society is a large number of men who live together in the same country, and who deal with one another." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/society.html "A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html "2. What is good for one must be good for all. Moral beliefs, in order to rise above mere opinion, must be applicable to everyone. There is no logically consistent way to say that Person A must do X, but Person Y must never do X. If an action is termed "good," then it must be good for all people. If I classify the concept "mammal" as "warm-blooded," then it must include all warm-blooded organisms – otherwise the concept is meaningless. The concept "good" must thus encompass the preferred behaviour for all people – not just "Orientals" or "Policemen" or "Americans." If it doesn’t, then it’s just an aesthetic or cultural penchant, like preferring hockey to football, and loses any power for universal prescription. Thus if it is "good" for a politician to use force to take money from you and give it to me, then it is also "good" for anyone else to do it." This is rationalism and is not consistent with Objectivism. It seems to be based on on Kant's Categorical imperative, which totally ignores context and divorces value from beneficiaries. Molyneux fails to objectively define the good. He actually formulates "the good" as a "preferred behaviour" (misspelled) for all people! "Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no 'right' to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind." - Galt's speech. " What is the difference? Remember – there is no such thing as "a policeman" or "a soldier" – those are mere concepts. " Concepts are not subjective, i.e., to be wiped out as arbitrary simply because they are concepts.

I am also interested in purchasing copies of Nathaniel Branden Seminars on LP if anyone has them and is looking to pass them on.

New Zealand is my first choice. They speak English, the land is magnificent, I hear they are out ranking the U.S. now in terms of economic freedom. It is also important to consider where the U.S. will be in the next 10-30 years and compare that to where you think New Zealand will be. Most likely, the U.S. will have socialized medicine, so in that respect it's a wash with New Zealand. The taxes are somewhat high in NZ, but I doubt it's really much less in the U.S. Especially, if you live in California or New York. NZ is unlikely to be the target of any major terrorist attacks. I'm not sure what NZ is doing with their fiat money, but hopefully they are not printing away full speed like we are here. There is an Objectivist group out there though that kinda makes me wonder if the island is big enough for all us cats and dogs.

From my understanding they were stolen, not lost.

Not available or disregarded?

No transcription has been published yet. I understood from Barbara Branden that she is working on a book which will be based on the Efficient Thinking course she gave. I own a copy of the course on CD, it is excellent!! I also offered the series through our study group here in Dallas last year. It's an outstanding complement to The Basic Principles of Objectivism Course and I would like very much to see a transcription become available one day, in addition to Barbara's new book.

Hello all, I am interested in completing my LP collection of Barbara Branden's Efficient Thinking Series. If anyone has individual LPs or an entire series and is willing to negotiate a sales price, I'd like to hear from you! Thanks so much, Randall Email: cultureofreasoncenter@gmail.com

From my understanding, Ayn Rand participated in Q&A sessions with Nathaniel Branden after lectures in the Basic Principles course and the Efficient Thinking course.

Hello everyone, I have been reading Ayn Rand Answers recently and the book references a radio program called "Night Call" (March 1969). Does anyone have a copy of this Ayn Rand interview? Would anyone be willing to let me borrow their copy which I would return. I will gladly pay for all shipping costs. I'm also interested in purchasing a copy, if anyone is willing to part with their copy for a reasonable price. Per the ARI bookstore: "Unfortunately, this is not an item that we sell." Please feel free to email me directly: cultureofreasoncenter@gmail.com Best regards, Randall

Hello there, I'd like to address a few sections of your post, if I may: The following I propose as simple referenced definitions of terminology: "Knowledge" is ... a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation. AR, "Concepts of Consciousness," ITOE Implicit knowledge is passively held material which, to be grasped, requires a special focus and process of consciousness. AR. "Axiomatic Concepts,"ITOE, Truth is the recognition of reality . AIt GS. FNI. 126. LP discusses in "The Arbitrary as Neither True Nor False ," OPAR. I would like to note that the concept of "objective" (as I understand it) in this context means that reality is independent from consciousness. A statement or conclusion is true only if it adheres to reality as opposed to consciousness or whim, wish or belief. Truth is derived from the concept of existence. Falseness, is derived from the concept of non-existence. In response to this, I'd simply like to post more from that same passage: The principle here is evident: since a later discovery rests hierarchically on earlier knowledge, it cannot contradict its own base. The qualified formulation in no way clashes with the initial proposition, viz.: "Within the context of the circumstances so far known, A bloods are compatible." This proposition represented real knowledge when it was first reached, and it still does so; in fact, like all properly formulated truths, this truth is immutable. Within the context initially specified, A bloods are and always will be compatible. The appearance of a contradiction between new knowledge and old derives from a single source: context-dropping. If the researchers had decided to view their initial discovery as an out-of-context absolute; if they were to declare—in effect, as a matter of dogma: "A bloods will always be compatible, regardless of altered circumstances"; then of course the next factor discovered would plunge them into contradiction, and they would end up complaining that knowledge is impossible. But if a man reaches conclusions logically and grasps their contextual nature, intellectual progress poses no threat to him; it consists to a great extent in his identifying ever more fully the relationships, the connections among facts, that make the world a unity. Such a man is not dismayed to find that he always has more to learn. He is happy about it, because he recognizes that he is expanding and refining his knowledge, not subverting it. Although the researchers cannot claim their discovery as an out-of-context absolute, they must treat it as a contextual absolute (i.e., as an immutable truth within the specified context). The researchers must know that the initial generalization is valid—"know" as against guess, hope, or feel. It is only on this basis that they can progress to further discoveries. Since it is an established truth that A bloods are compatible under the circumstances so far encountered, the researchers are able to infer, when they observe a new reaction, the presence of a new factor. By contrast, when the anti-contextual mentality observes the new reaction, he stops dead. "My generalization was unreliable," he sighs, "science is a progression of exploded theories, everything is relative." - OPAR p.174 By justification I believe you mean evidence. A conclusion without evidence is a floating abstraction, a dogma. One has no bases for accepting a conclusion divorced from facts, i.e., sensory evidence or logical demonstration. See The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept by Nathaniel Branden. Many people in our Kantian era think, mistakenly, that absolutism is incompatible with a contextual approach to knowledge. These people define an "absolute" as a principle independent of any other fact or cognition; i.e., as something unaffected by anything else in reality or in human knowledge. Such a principle could come to be known only by revelation. An eloquent example of this approach was offered years ago by a famous relativist, who told his class that airplanes refute the law of gravitation. Gravitation, he explained, means that entities over a certain weight fall to the earth; but an airplane in flight does not. Someone objected that there are many interacting factors in reality, and that gravitation involves an object's falling only if the gravitational pull is not counteracted by an opposing force, as it is in the airplane's case. To which the professor replied: "Precisely. Gravitation is conditional; its operation depends on circumstances; so it is not an absolute." What then would qualify as an absolute? Only a fact that has no relationships to anything (like Hegel's supernatural Absolute). Such a fact would be knowable only "in itself," by mystic insight, without the "contamination" of any "external" context of evidence. The modern definition of "absolute" represents the rejection of a rational metaphysics and epistemology. It is the inversion of a crucial truth: relationships are not the enemy of absolutism; they are what make it possible. We prove a conclusion on the basis of facts logically related to it and then integrate it into the sum of our knowledge. That process is what enables us to say: "Everything points to this conclusion; the total context demands it; within these conditions, it is unshakable." About an isolated revelation, by contrast, we could never be secure. Since we would know nothing that makes it so, we could count on nothing to keep it so, either. Contextualism does not mean relativism. It means the opposite. The fact of context does not weaken human conclusions or make them vulnerable to overthrow. On the contrary, context is precisely what makes a (properly specified) conclusion invulnerable. So far, I have considered only two mental states, knowledge and ignorance, and two corresponding verdicts to define an idea's status: "validated" or "unknown." Inherent in the mind's need of logic, however, is a third, intermediate status, which applies for a while to certain complex higher-level conclusions. In these cases, the validation of an idea is gradual; one accumulates evidence step by step, moving from ignorance to knowledge through a continuum of transitional states. The main divisions of this continuum (including its terminus) are identified by three concepts: "possible," "probable," and "certain." The first range of the evidential continuum is covered by the concept "possible." A conclusion is "possible" if there is some, but not much, evidence in favor of it, and nothing known that contradicts it. This last condition is obviously required—a conclusion that contradicts known facts is false—but it is not sufficient to support a verdict of "possible." There are countless gratuitous claims in regard to which one cannot cite any contradictory fact, because they are inherently detached from facts; this does not confer on such claims any cognitive status. For an idea to qualify as "possible," there must be a certain amount of evidence that actually supports it. If there is no such evidence, the idea falls under a different concept: not "possible," but "arbitrary." - OPAR p.174-176

I'm not sure that I completely agree here Skylark. I think modern Christians simply do not live their philosophy as consistently as they used to (see the dark ages). The Islamic world has not experienced an enlightenment let alone a renaissance.

Aside from estimates and opinions of Return to Reason which I didn't ask for. Does anyone know more about the author or how to contact him? - Sorry if that sounds a little snarky, but I'd like help contacting this person, if it is possible.

I would like to know more about who Paul Lepanto is. He wrote: Return to Reason in 1971 . Does anyone know how to contact him? Title: Return to Reason: An Introduction to Objectivism Author: Paul Lepanto Year Published: 1971 Publisher: Exposition Press Publication Type: Self/Vanity ISBN-10: 0-682-47204-2 (hardcover) ISBN-13: 978-0-682-47204-3 (hardcover) Description: Lepanto's preface self-describes him as a "student of the only rational school of contemporary philosophy: objectivism." (He uses the lower-case 'o' throughout his book.) The book is supposed to be a "layman's introduction" to Rand's philosophy. This book is currently out of print. Contents Preface Part One Existence Life Part Two Our Senses Concepts Logic Volitional Consciousness Values Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem Morality Duality of Awareness Art The Subconscious Emotions Emotional Perplexities Repression Self-Esteem A Summary and a Preview Part Three Knowledge and Progress Production and Trade Visibility Sexuality The Nature of Freedom Freedom in Society Rights: I Rights: II The Role of Government Censorship Prohibitionism Conscription Taxation Evaluating Government Practices Capitalism Social Metaphysics and Spiritual Appeasement A Rational Way of Life

On thinking over your reply some more (I'm having a difficult time understanding it), I think Rand is trying to redirect the idea of interests, not the idea of conflict, onto another context. If both men are interested in obtaining a job, then this "conflict" is a beneficial one because without it there would be no business to provide a job for either of them. They should therefore be interested in the "conflict," not opposed to it, as integral to the way business operates. Hi Skylark, I do think this explains exactly what Rand was trying to say. I'm just not sure I totally buy it. It's almost congruent with the Nietzschean idea that "that which does not kill you makes you stronger." Ask any businessman if he is excited about a new competition, he most often will not tell you "it's to our interest, it keeps me honest, if there were no competition I would be lazy and I would have to close my doors." It does not matter if the competition involves AC vs. DC current, Bluray vs. HD or VHS vs. Betamax. In the case of AC vs. DC, this competition ("without clash of interests") did not bring about honesty and respect between the competitors (especially Edison). Aside from my points regarding the component of supply and demand in regard to labor, the crux of the argument depends on clearly defining what actually is in one's self-interest. Obviously the free market (Laissez-faire Capitalism) is to everyone's self-interest, even if competing in the market can mean failure. The fact that failure is possible is not a disadvantage, if success were guaranteed, would it really be success? The competitions you mentioned brought about change that was good for the economy. And if people like Edison detested the competition and considered it a black vs. white conflict of interests, then so much the better because it encourages more vigorous competition. It's in one's interest for there to be conflicts of interest? This sounds like those that argue that it is in one's self-interest to be an altruist. The primary purpose to enter business is one's own success, if that indirectly benefits others (the economy) fine. I think I'm going to have to spend some time really thinking about the concept of conflict and interest. When I started this thread, my primary point was to question the principle that a business would have to close its doors if there was not more than a single applicant for a specific job. That principle is a different issue than if there really are conflicts of interest between rational men. Looking forward to more posts!

Are you sure that's not just benevolence? The way you phrase it sounds like something the GQ reviewer would write. In the 1976 Peikoff course a similar question was asked, and Peikoff started to answer it, and Rand called out that he was wrong, and went up later and gave her answer. A memorable moment. Her example was a witness in a criminal trial not disclosing something exculpatory, I don’t remember Peikoff’s example, but his answer was fine given the context he applied it to. I don’t remember which lecture it was, its been a long time since I took that course. We just recently listened to this Q&A, here in Dallas. I know it is in Vol. 2 of the CD set. I can try to find it if you like. Rand did eventually state that Peikoff was right, but that she had interpreted the question differently than he had. I recall Rand stating that a person is obligated to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth; but, I believe this was in a contexts pertaining to justice, such as a trial as opposed to snoopers, which is what I believe Peikoff was thinking. I would have to revisit the Q&A to be certain.

On thinking over your reply some more (I'm having a difficult time understanding it), I think Rand is trying to redirect the idea of interests, not the idea of conflict, onto another context. If both men are interested in obtaining a job, then this "conflict" is a beneficial one because without it there would be no business to provide a job for either of them. They should therefore be interested in the "conflict," not opposed to it, as integral to the way business operates. Hi Skylark, I do think this explains exactly what Rand was trying to say. I'm just not sure I totally buy it. It's almost congruent with the Nietzschean idea that "that which does not kill you makes you stronger." Ask any businessman if he is excited about a new competition, he most often will not tell you "it's to our interest, it keeps me honest, if there were no competition I would be lazy and I would have to close my doors." It does not matter if the competition involves AC vs. DC current, Bluray vs. HD or VHS vs. Betamax. In the case of AC vs. DC, this competition ("without clash of interests") did not bring about honesty and respect between the competitors (especially Edison). Aside from my points regarding the component of supply and demand in regard to labor, the crux of the argument depends on clearly defining what actually is in one's self-interest. Obviously the free market (Laissez-faire Capitalism) is to everyone's self-interest, even if competing in the market can mean failure. The fact that failure is possible is not a disadvantage, if success were guaranteed, would it really be success? Best regards, Randall

This is one of the best answers I have seen so far. I think it is more clear than what Ayn Rand wrote. However, not all companies have to hire or close their doors. A company does not necessarily have to grow- it may function by simply maintaining its current level of production, or it may increase production and efficiency by implementing new technology. Part of the basic problem I see here is a result of the law of supply and demand. If many people share the same skills that I do, then our value decreases. When there are many qualified applicants for the same job, that drives down the cost of labor. In that respect, more people can mean a decrease in wages in a particular field. To a rather large extent, a society does have to be concerned about the rate of change in its population size. The economy of a small town could not support the immigration of 50-100 times its current residents overnight. Such a dramatic change in population would be very difficult to accommodate. It of course can be argued that by flooding the market with new labor, one may indeed lose their job, and may have to take another job for less pay, but that person's total wealth may improve regardless, because of the decrease in the cost of production. (I have more thoughts, but I will have to revisit this topic at a later time)

Interesting topic for sure. It obviously hits home for me and many of my friends. I was talking about some of these issues with my ex, who I regard as one of my best friends and who I turned on to Objectivism about three years ago. He looked up the history of the military laws in the US. From what we understood there was no law addressing homosexuality in regard to the military until the late 1800s. I believe the first law that was implemented made it a felony. I personally think the repeal of "don't ask don't tell" will be a challenge, but good in the long run. Most of my gay friends that are in the military now, I think will feel more at ease. I have my doubts that the sexual identity issues that are so prevalent in the gay community will be a problem for the military. I bring this up because there is some obvious truth to all the jokes. The stereotypical mental and behavioral characteristics of femininity I would argue are incompatible with physical aggression, killing and destructiveness. Lesbians stereotypically are characterized as masculine. Most of the gay men I know that are interested in the military act and behave as most straight men do. In fact, most people would have no idea that they are in fact gay. In other words, feminine females and feminine men I doubt would be interested in the military anyway (maybe I am wrong).

Hi Mike, I've posted messages on OO which have been deleted, beginning with some of my very first posts, and I've seen others' messages deleted as well -- one such person who comes to mind off the top of my head is Daniel Barnes, one of whose posts I saw deleted for no legitimate reason. As I mentioned on this thread here on OL, during the times that my posts were being deleted I was sometimes blocked from posting on OO, and on some occasions it appeared that I was even being blocked from visiting the site (I couldn't access it from the building that I normally post from, but I could access it from another computer which is a few miles away that I sometimes use). Sometimes my deleted posts would be restored after I asked a moderator why he had deleted them, and sometimes they wouldn't. When asking the moderators to explain why posts had been deleted or separated off to another thread, I would receive no response, or a response in which they told me that they were certain that I already knew why my post had been deleted, or that they had no reason that they wished to share with me. In one instance, I posted a message about a topic and was told that I couldn't post on the specific thread to which I had posted -- I was told that I could retrieve my post from the deletions subforum and repost it to any other thread, but not to the thread to which it was most relevant. Again, no reason was given when I requested an explanation. I was simply told that the moderator wasn't interested in going into any more detail about his reasoning, when he hadn't given any reasons or details to begin with. I think that I was very polite in asking the moderators about their actions, and, generally, I think that they were quite snarky and unhelpful in response. I got the strong impression that I was seen as an "enemy of Objectivism" because I was interested in discussing some of Rand's more controversial opinions or contradictions. Having said all that, in recent months they've been much less uptight. They've allowed me to post arguments which I think they would have deleted in the past. They now seem to be more willing to ask me what relevance a post of mine has to a topic being discussed as opposed to just assuming that it has no relevance (in the past, they didn't seem to grasp, for example, that the Objectivist position on music as an art form has relevance to the Objectivist position on abstract visual art, and any time that I would focus on that connection in regard to the Objectivist view of the nature of all art, one of the moderators would intrude and delete or move my comments on music to a thread on music -- it's really hard to discuss the larger category of art when a moderator insists on subdividing discussions on each of the arts into separate categories, while refusing to listen to any complaints that he's not understanding the bigger picture, and that his separating posts off onto other threads prevents any chance of his understanding it). So, I've been moderated and temporarily banned from OO in the past, but what I take to be the more recent general attitude there of openness and willingness to allow differing points of view is a good thing. I currently have a very positive view of OO. J Jonathan, I used to participate in OO. I no longer do, simply because I enjoy the benevolent crowed here much more (Thank you MSK). However, I know the owner of the OO site and his wife personally (for a few years now). I would like to think that many of the positive changes that you are talking about are a result of my influence. I never had any of my posts deleted over there that I am aware of. But, I did receive a warning from the moderators unjustly. I generally don't have a problem with intellectual disagreements, but I do have a problem with overbearing rudeness and obnoxious tones of superiority. Most of the time, I find that my breaks with people have been due to a lack of civility (on their part) and rarely because of how foolish, ignorant, false or evil their ideas happen to be. Randall

To All, If you are curious as to the connection between Anna Rand Lively and Objectivism. Anna Rand Lively is named after Ayn Rand and knew Miss Rand as a child. Her father Earl Lively was quoted in Capitalism The Unknown Ideal. "Have you ever felt a peculiar kind of embarrassment when witnessing a grossly inappropriate human performance, such as the antics of an unfunny comedian? It is a depersonalized, almost metaphysical embarrassment at having to witness so undignified a behavior on the part of a member of the human species. That is what I feel at having to hear the following statement of Governor Romney, which was his alleged answer to the communists' boast that they would bury capitalism: "But what they do not understand—and what we have failed to tell the world—is that Americans buried capitalism long ago, and moved on to consumerism." The implications of such a statement are too sickeningly obvious. The best comment on it came from The Richardson Digest (Richardson, Texas, April 28, 1965), from the column "Lively Comments" by Earl Lively, who wrote: "Afraid to stand alone, even on his knees, Romney then tells the rest of us that we do not know the definition of capitalism, we do not understand our economic principles, and we'd be better off if we quit going around defending such an unpopular concept as capitalism." Mr. Lively is admirably precise in his description of the posture involved." - The Obliteration Of Capitalism, Ayn Rand

Price: $14.99 Album: Anna Lively Artist: Anna Rand Lively Bringing a great new talent to the grand old Big-Band standards, Anna Rand Lively sings the music of Tin Pan Alley, Broadway, and Movie Musicals reminiscent of the great Big-Band vocalists and solo recording stars. Track 01: Saturday Night (Is The Lonliest Night In The Week) 2:00 Track 02: They Can't Take That Away From Me 3:44 Track 03: L-o-v-e 2:11 Track 04: In The Wee Small Hours Of The Morning 3:45 Track 05: I Can't Give You Anything But Love 1:51 Track 06: Nature Boy 3:18 Track 07: How About You 2:14 Track 08: I Had The Craziest Dream 3:51 Track 09: He's A Tramp 2:16 Track 10: Fly Me To The Moon 2:16 Track 11: Lover Man 5:15 Price: $14.99 Album: It's a Little Bit Funny... It IS a little bit funny that so many songs from the golden age of music are, indeed, funny. The keen wit and literary artistry of the lyricists of that era are amazing. Artist: Anna Rand Lively Track 01: They All Laughed 2:11 Track 02: Makin' Whoopee 2:50 Track 03: Teach Me Tonight 4:11 Track 04: (Why Did I Tell You I Was Goin' To) Shanghai 2:09 Track 05: If I Only Had A Brain 4:45 Track 06: Hard Hearted Hannah 2:37 Track 07: My Funny Valentine 4:58 Track 08: Put 'Em In A Box, Tie 'Em With A Ribbon 2:24 Track 09: You Make Me Laugh 2:14