anonrobt

Heck, black holes might be green for all we know... just none of that beautiful green light escapes!

Some people talk about whether all the black holes in the universe can be threaded together, but the issue is quite patchy. Everytime someone talks about it, all the other scientists button-up!

Some even question black holes as the correct answer -

regarding the experimental and verification approach, here's from Plasmacosmology.net, over the difference between its view and the 'big bang' -

...................

The 'Actualistic' versus the 'Prophetic'

Following in the footsteps of their famous predecessors, plasma physicists are keen to take an Actualistic approach, that of working backwards from observation, and taking a broad approach to science. Birkeland, for example, believed in experimentation and observation in addition to mathematical modelling, despite having trained as a mathematician. He was famous for his Terella experiments , and for expeditions to polar regions to observe auroras at first hand.

Big Bangers, by contrast, exhibit a preference for the Prophetic approach, that of starting out from idealised mathematical principles. This theoretical approach, however, is fraught with problems, as the history of science testifies. For example:

1. Sidney Chapman's mathematical models failed to predict the complex three dimensional nature of the Earth's magnetosphere.

2. The Kinetic theory of Ordinary gases fails to predict the behaviour of Plasmas (originally called ionised gases), because of their electrodynamic interactions. The mathematics may work for ordinary gases, but it fails hopelessly for plasmas.

3. Ptolemaic epicycles were mathematically elegant, and they worked, but they failed to recognise the underlying mechanism.

4. The prophetic approach postulates a number of entities prior to their discovery. Hypotheticals like Dark Matter and dark Energy are required to balance the equations in Big Bang cosmology.

5. Mathematical proofs were cited to support the claim that heavier-than-air flight was impossible! These, of course, turned out to be total nonsense.

"After all, to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a modicum of humility." Halton Arp

“We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.” Hannes Alfvén

Mathematics and Science

The importance of mathematics in science cannot be denied. It is an essential tool for both measurement and prediction, principles on which science is based, but history teaches us to be cautious before relying on mathematics as a starting point.

Ptolemaic epicycles, mentioned above, highlight the dangers of the mathematical approach. They were a series of circular orbits within orbits, and with a few tweaks they would probably still work today, but the point is that -- although mathematically correct, and indeed elegant -- they failed to reflect the underlying reality.

Einstein himself had reservations about the mathematical approach favoured by expanding universe proponents:

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more."

"To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality."

In other words, Math should be subordinate to Physics, and not the other way around, as it is now.

“... Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect of interaction between moving matter and æther, to give the mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the æther and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory...” Herbert Dingle, Science at the Cross-Roads.

Epicycles

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." Albert Einstein

Math and Logic

It is all too often assumed that mathematics is a form of pure logic, and therefore above reproach. Although it contains many logical elements, the relationship between math and logic is not simple. Bertrand Russell and a number of other philosophers have dedicated no little time in trying to prove the relationship, but all have failed. Math is only pure in so far as much of it reflects the realm of pure thought, and not necessarily reality. Unfortunataly, math all too often drives modern cosmology. The trouble is, math should be our slave ... not our master.

Plasma Cosmology works backwards from observation, not forwards from perfect theoretical principals. Additionally, plasma behaviours are not always easy to model mathematically. Langmuir, after all, borrowed the term from blood plasma because of its life-like qualities.

Russell's Paradox highlights a math-logic problem via the agent of Set Theory.

"Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little." Bertrand Russell

Matters of some gravity

It is easy to forget that we do not understand the mechanism behind gravity. It is a force which is described mathematically. Newton admitted as much:

"But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses." Isaac Newton

Einstein further muddied the waters when he replaced a mathematical description of gravity with an abstract mathematical description, by factoring in time as a physical dimension. Can empty space really be curved?

“Einstein was quite simply contemptuous of experiment, preferring to put his faith in pure thought." Paul Davies

..........

Doesn't speak well of the mathematical methodology as opposed to the experimental...

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/

http://vodpod.com/watch/1806765-comets-extended-ver-plasma-cosmology-electric-universe

http://vodpod.com/watch/1806785-plasma-cosmology-a-brief-introduction

http://www.amazon.com/Electric-Sky-Donald-E-Scott/dp/0977285111/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_ttl_in_f

http://vodpod.com/watch/1806715-cosmology-quest-2-plasma-cosmology-part-1-of-5

To Alfven, the Big Bang was a myth devised to explain creation:

"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago.

"Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, may not be compatible with the Book of Genesis. However, religions such as Buddhism get along without having any explicit creation mythology and are in no way contradicted by a universe without a beginning or end. Creatio ex nihilo, even as religious doctrine, only dates to around AD 200. The key is not to confuse myth and empirical results, or religion and science."

Christopher wrote:

One epistemological theory is that all subjects perceive only objects, and all objects are necessarily representations of past stuff. No two subjects can perceive each other in a synchronous moment because the moment of awareness has not allowed sequential time to disseminate the existence of the subject outward.

End quote

Now that is a wild thought. When you look at someone, you are actually seeing photons of what they looked liked, from a milisecond ago. If I were standing by Reese Witherspoon, it would behoove us both to get as close as possible, to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. If fact the only way we could ensure no misunderstanding would be to inhabit the same space at the same time. I like this space/time continuum.

General wrote:

Time and space are intricately connected. When we look out into space we are "looking back in time". When we look at the geometric (spacial) relations of a clock we measure time. We can synchronize our clocks here on earth fairly well but that is because we are close together and not moving too fast and not in a strong gravitational field. But if we were separated by vast distances in deep space we have no way to synchronize clocks.

End quote

Synchronization could be closely approximated, by using a pulsar burst since you know where you are, how far you are from the other clock, and how far each clock is from the burst. If gravity slows time, then time ceases in a Black Hole. On Star Trek, Sub Space communications are instantaneous but science fiction may not prove to be phrophetic. .

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote

One of the major mistakes made by Objectivist philosophers is to try to stuff the manifold of physical phenomena into an Aristotelian bag . . .

end quote

I know there is an ARI difficulty with The Big Bang, and Quantum Mechanics. They will not allow it to be a part of ‘Contextual Objectivism,’ the philosophy, at this time. Some have said my threads are too long to read, so I have just included a smattering of excerpts from over a dozen people about the schism betwenn Objectivism and Science. Then you can just stop reading if it becomes tedious. No authors names are given for the quotes but they are from OWL and Atlantis, now defunct.

Peter

The point is that existence -- reality -- cannot "begin" at some point "in" time. Time requires the existence of moving bodies, since time, by definition, is the measurement of relative motion. Moreover, something cannot come from nothing. That's a metaphysical impossibility. For an explosion -- whether it's a big bang or a little bang -- to take place, SOMETHING has to explode.

I have no problem with the big bang. What I have a problem with is the idea that prior to the big bang, nothing existed and that the universe in its present form popped into existence out of nothing. Is this what you believe?

Weaknesses in the hot "Big Bang" theory:

A. What is the source of the "Big Bang"?

B. Unknown and unobserved dark matter and dark energy is required. Not only required but all sorts of complex arrangements are needed for even the most basic observations to agree with General Relativity.

C. Where did the anti-matter go?

D. Unexplained quantized red-shifts among galaxies and within individual galaxies.

E. The unexplained existence of very high energy cosmic rays [the cosmic microwave background should slow them down]

F. No known source for the required introduction of "inflation" and questionable reasoning concerning an increasing speed of universal expansion.

G. There is a great deal of mixed evidence concerning the distribution of various bodies, the age of bodies at various red-shifts, and how fully formed apparently old galaxies and stars exist at the very edge of observation near the time the "Big Bang" is expected to have occurred.

H. The universal expansion conveniently expands between galaxies but not within galaxies due to the careful placement of dark energy and/or dark matter.

The king daddy is quantum mechanics. Nothing has caused more confusion both inside and outside of physics directly as a result of its impact on epistemology. I have let my views be known a number of times. There are many issues involved in quantum mechanics and all involve very specialized knowledge. Philosophers are right to be concerned that errors have been committed. Philosophers should not compound the error by making pronouncements on applications of epistemology when their lack of understanding of the technical issues often puts their pronouncements at odds with known facts. The only solution I see is an interactive one. Both sides need to keep pronouncements of certainty on the issues to themselves until they actually understand what it is they are talking about. Philosophers who do not understand the technical issues are at a tremendous disadvantage. Physicists often understand philosophy, I have seen few philosophers who understand physics.

Even as late as David Hume in the late 18th century, the particular sciences (such as physics, biology and psychology) were still referred to by the general name of "philosophy." Not only philosophers, but also the founders of modern science (e.g., Galileo, Lavoisier) used this kind of terminology. Scientists referred to themselves as "philosophers" and the science they were engaged in as "natural philosophy." However, in calling their work "experimental philosophy," it is clear that they were also conscious of the difference between themselves and the ancient and medieval scientists. Kant, at the end of the 18th century, laid down the distinction between the experimental sciences and the "rational sciences," among which he included philosophy and mathematics. The 19th century philosophers, such as William James, took the further step of restricting the term "science" to mathematics and experimental or empirical areas of research, as opposed to philosophy.

When I said that lacking a philosophy of science made Rand's epistemology incomplete, I didn't mean to imply that philosophy of science issues are more basic than questions about everyday knowledge. I meant that a comprehensive epistemology has to be able to answer philosophy of science questions. Rand didn't propose answers to them, so we're not even at the point of "validation"--judging whether her answers were good ones or not.

Rand had much to teach us but her lack of scientific understanding of reality forces the scientific literate to pick and choose the correct elements out of her philosophy. Her philosophy no longer forms a coherent whole in agreement with what is known from observation. Rand created an inflexible structure which cannot adapt to new knowledge from the sciences. As such big "O" Objectivism will have to be rolled over (401K rollover) into another philosophy not hostile to new scientific developments affecting the philosophic foundation. Your foundation must adapt as your house changes in size or grows in weight or the whole thing will collapse. Its evolution: adapt or die.

I am aware that Harry Binswanger did embrace and promote an experimentally disproven alternative quantum mechanical theory, apparently because of the author's philosophical outlook.

I am also aware that some Objectivist speakers on relativity have mistakenly taken a slant against relativity as implying philosophical content it does not. Some advocates may have represented relativity as implying this philosophical content but their battle should be against the advocates, not relativity itself [in this particular respect].

I aware that David Harriman has been working his way up at ARI in the arena of science but I have not heard the specifics about what errors he has advocated. An abstract of his work on the Web makes him sound extreme in his lumping together of a diverse community to fit his theses, but no completely incorrect statement is apparent, just an error of degree. Could Prof. Gould or Ellen give us a short summary what his problem is?

I think it is telling that ARI is so nervous about science and has been putting much effort into extricating Objectivism from some of the corners it has painted itself into.

JR c. 1950: "As for atomic physics, I'm quite willing to label it pseudo- science. Its basic methodology, stripped of its self-serving and obfuscating jargon, is as follows: if certain submicroscopic particles existed and had certain characteristics, then we would observe certain phenomena; we observe these phenomena; therefore these sub-microscopic particles (atoms) exist and have the assumed characteristics. In ordinary logic textbooks, this is known as the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent."

In other words, was it the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent for scientists in 1900 or 1925 or 1950 to accept the existence of atoms before they had visual evidence (from electron microscopes) of their existence? Or, instead, didn't they in fact have ample other evidence to hypothesize the existence of atoms, ~even without~visual evidence showing the little buggers in all (or some of) their glory?

The plasma cosmology view of the universe handles those weaknesses of the 'big bang' theory much better...

Impress me by proving that God doesn't exist.

--Brant

If God does exist, then It is no omnipotent. Proof: If It were omnipotent it could bake a cake so big It could not eat it all. But what if It could not bake such a cake? Then it is not omnipotent.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This explains my indigestion.

--Brant

in over my head but it tasted good

if you're going with "God does exist" as a premise, wouldn't you have to first adduce evidence that he does?

to know God is omnipotent wouldn't we first have to have other knowledge of God?--an old white guy with a beard in the sky?--maybe He's not omnipotent

all it seems you are trying to prove is that nothing does not exist and you start with the idea that nothing has this characteristic: omnipotence--so you prove omnipotence does not exist, not God

still in over my head

But - nothing does NOT exist - it is not some 'thing' in opposition to 'something' , but merely the ABSENCE of something...

as far as "God" goes, always love the line Peter O'Toole says in The Ruling Class - How do I know I am God? because every time I pray, I find I am talking to myself...

Bob,

I agree that the trailer is confusing. If you see it within the context of watching Glenn Beck on his show (or in an interview) talking about what is coming, it makes sense. But on a cold viewing, it's a jumbled mess.

I saw the documentary and it was much, much better.

Beck's theme is that the Progressive movement started somewhere around the time of Theodore Roosevelt and is the true growing cancer in American society. Today a Progressive and a liberal are so similar as to be almost identical. This includes endorsing and promoting collectivism, statism, environmentalism, and a host of other isms.

To sell these isms under the shining light of the image of our Founding Fathers is almost impossible, though, so the Progressive tactic has been to rewrite history. The heroism of our Founding Fathers has been downplayed and they have been presented as highly flawed individuals. Then famous collectivists (often bloody dictators) have been romanticized.

Witness the Che tee-shirts everywhere, the image of Mao as grandfatherly, etc. George Bernard Shaw is shown gushing about Mussolini before WWII, showing that the Progressive habit of glorifying bloody dictators and presenting them as harmless or as great humanitarians goes back to older times.

In Stalin's case, I believe Beck misfired by focusing on him through this lens since Stalin is already widely regarded as evil. The good part of that focus, though, is that the mainstream audience was presented with the fact that Stalin was just as evil, if not more so, than Hitler. Everybody knows what the Holocaust was. Almost nobody (mainstream audience-wise) knows what the Holodomor was.

So Beck's idea is to present historical footage of these butchers, with commentary, interviews, etc., and the ridiculousness of how the Progressives have made these monsters become cool. And to give the reasons why they are doing it.

One of the parts I really enjoyed was the idea of taking modern cool tee-shirts glorifying these monsters and stamping a flip side on them. For instance, Beck showed a pretty girl modeling a tee-shirt of Che Guevarra on the front, and when she turned around there is a quote from Guevarra in big honking letters: "The Negro is indolent and lazy, and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent."

On a tee-shirt of Mao, the flip side says: "This Tee-Shirt Killed 65,000,000 People."

And so on.

It's a cool idea. In fact, I just might make an online boutique for this.

All in all, the documentary should elicit a lot of commentary. But to me, it fell a bit flat and was over-stylized (overkill on jiggling letters with white noise indicating static, too-frequent cuts from one thing to another giving the impression of a collage instead of a narrative, etc.). Also, I already knew a lot of the stuff in it. I'm not a typical mainstream viewer in this respect, and I've been gone from the States for a 32 year block, so there is a resonance issue I might not feel that others do. I can't help but feel that the best from Beck is yet to come.

But for the mainstream? It will be interesting to see what the reaction of Joe Six-Pack will be.

Michael

All of what Beck said, then, is basically in Liberal Fascism, Goldberg's great book...

I again stress that I am not claiming a mystical *soul* or *aura* is being manifested. I insist the *the experience of thought, and consciousness* may be an amalgamation of matter, and electro chemicals, but when I experience consciousness it is yet another form of reality. Can anyone give *IT* a scientific name?

Aren't you experiencing *IT* as you think about this dilemma?

Peter

Korzybski claimed that 'concsiouness' by itself was an incomplete term and he proposed 'consciouness of abstracting' instead. So you can't simply be concious, it has no meaning unless you are conscious of something and that something is our abstractions. In a sense it seems mystical to have reached a point in our evolution where we have become aware that our entire experience of life is a result of microscopic and sub-microscopic processes.

Since animals, even the higher ones, do not abstract [and perceptual concretes are not abstractions, as that is a conceptualness], then animals are not conscious?? [sapients abstract, not mere sentients]

It would ~really~ backfire against the Democrats. Seems like it is something more in the realm of Republican dirty tricks--you know, do something that would likely be blamed on the Democrats, in order to profit from the backlash against them.

Interesting ye pull this out - when, by the records of the past couple years [such as ACORN for instance], as seen on many blogs, that it is the Democrats who in reality engage in nefarious tactics, not the Republicans who are oft accused of such...

Robert:

Quite chilling. However, I am not sure as to how obvious the answer is. The easy answer is the left, but I think it would be their Reichstag.

Damn interesting question with what is being played for right now in the history of this amazing nation.

What are your thoughts? Who do you see as benefiting from that "event"?

Adam

assuming the Rodin position

assuming the Rodin position - really? as in The Thinker? - ever try that? [and note the elbow is on the opposite thigh, not the normal same side thigh?] - http://www.southdacola.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rodin20thinker.jpg

[contrary to the usual notion of this being a paean to thinking, it is about the agony and tortuousness of thinking - a negative]

Justice is defined as the application of rationality to the evaluation and treatment of other individuals. This means that "....one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit" [Rand].

In this regard, I think there has been a slight misunderstanding of what justice is - and as such, how it is to properly be applied...

Oddly, this is the one Rand novel I've never completed, even after several attempts, tho have seen the movie version several times... the horrors of the life in those times bothers me too much to keep reading to the end... Like Schindler's List, too much to take in for me...

So unless you believe in the possibility of mystical insight, no amount of evolution can lead to organs that can capture reality "as it is".

...........

And what of the animals - ye saying they do not perceive reality as they go about their affairs? the reality-orienting the animals have is the same one used by humans, who are but higher animals able to analyze their senses...

Indeed very interesting...

Speaking of that... Jane Jacobs pointed out that hunter societies ("Guardians") have highly evolved decorative arts. Decoration is how the hunter keeps his mind sharp when he is not out there tracking. Tatoos are perfect examples, but she also touches on the Greeks and the Renaissance, as examples. Traders, she notes, have different kinds of artistic expressions.

And to carry further, it is the mindset behind decorative arts which evolved into the 'non-objective' arts [and 'art for the sake of art' mentality]...

Ideas are evil when they translate into evil actions. Before that, they are merely mistaken.

People ought not to be punished for ideas. Only for actions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al is absolutely correct in this post. Thinking about killing someone is not the same as killing someone.

Yep - evil is as evil does - it is the actioning which is evil...

Over the years, when working in offices, I noticed that someone will come in to work first thing and say "Did you see that show?" or "How about that game?" and everyone (except me) will know what they mean. With 50 or 100 or more channels of television, there must be dozens of important games being played every weekend. Three or four hit shows play every night in prime time on broadcast and with cable "that show" could be on a cooking channel or a history channel. Still, they are all in synch on this. Everyone seems to know which game or which show (or which game show) is important.

Working in security, I meet a lot of cops and soldiers. One thing about them is their inherent collectivism. They think that whatever they think is what everyone else thinks. Often, they are right, generally speaking. Most people are common, by definition.

A long time ago, I read a Zane Grey book that stuck with me Speaking through his hero ("The First Fast Gun"), Grey says something like, "I'm not too smart, but staring at the fire all night long, I can turn a thing around in my mind and see it from other sides." I do that. I look at things from other angles. Usually the common answer is easily the right one and the other views do not provide much else. Often, they do. Even when seeing something from a different angle doesn't let you take it apart easier, or put it together better, it lets you understand it better.

One time, I was working in a computer facility with a bunch of students and I was doing that, drawing out a flowchart and a student came up and asked me something and I could tell from the tone of her voice that she thought I wasn't doing anything. I realized then, that for her, doing well in school, "knowing things" was all on the surface. She did not do much thinking. So, when she saw me staring at the corner of the ceiling, she had no idea that anything was going on it my mind.

Even today, I often wonder what -- if anything -- goes on in the minds of other people. According to Julian Jaynes, most people, even today, may have the bicameral minds of higher mammals with little sense of self. Earlier in the school year last semester, I mentioned that there are people who have no voice in their heads and I said that just to gauge the responses of my classmates, some of whom apparently have no voice in their heads because I got that feeling like when you know you lost the audience.

You know, autism is more prevalent among highly intelligent groups? Counterpoints?

Honor is the desire to be loyal to one’s parents and heritage.

As opposed to Branden's Honoring the Self... one is an otherism mindset, the other is a selfism one... the same can be said of several others in that list...

Michael's list and anonrobt's list included just about all of the ones I was thinking about in my earlier post when I said that there had been a number of books advertised in publications such as "The New Individualist". Go to it and see if you like them better than I did...

Judith

I should add there is one other, a book of poetry by John Paul Sherman [bridgeberg Books]

called - Sing Me a Sky... John was an Objectivist and his poems [and there are loads more than was published] are, as far as I know [including Enright], the best 'Objectivist' poetry written...

After libertarian / Republican or Tea Party wins in 2010 and 2012, the chances for a constitutional convention will be greater. What would you want to be done? Would you hold it in Philadelphia? Or in a warmer climate, like Orlando?

Some thoughts to consider:

Shakespeare wrote:

“I do love my country’s good with a respect more tender, more holy and profound than mine own life. After what I owe to God, nothing should be more sacred than the respect I owe to my country. . .”

end quote

Commodore Stephen Decatur, in the early 1800's (either 1811 or 1816?) was in Norfolk, Virginia. He was in the company of many of his shipmates and friends. He stood up gravely and gave a toast:

"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

end of quote

Decatur is quoted wrongly, more often than not, as saying my country right or wrong.

Now read a different version of those sentiments by Carl Schurz’s:

“Our Country right or wrong - when right to be kept right and when wrong to be put right.”

This is a better stand than Stephen Decatur’s.

Jimbo (Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia) wrote, many years ago, about changing the Constitution.

The first quote is from the constitution:

"No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."

Then Jimbo writes:

My amendment would read:

Section 1. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary.

The essential idea here is to restrain the size of government by raising the bar. This would not result in overnight perfection, obviously, but it would help a great deal, I think.

--Jimbo

end quote

George H. Smith wrote:

“There is no chance that a vague and elastic document like the Constitution -- which James Madison described as a "bundle of compromises" -- can be judged "objectively," when the natural rights philosophy that animated it is no longer taken seriously. This was dramatically illustrated some years ago during the Robert Bork hearings, when that hero of conservatives described the Ninth Amendment as having no more legal value than an "ink blot," because we supposedly don't know what the rights "retained by the people" are supposed to be.”

end quote

In "Atlas Shrugged" paperback version, page 1073, Ayn prudently wrote of the character Judge Narragansett acting in this way:

“The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on the copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that had once been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . ."

End of quote

Here, Ayn made no other references to changing the Constitution, except for those little dots after "trade . . ."

How would an Objectivist, or a libertarian change our Constitution?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

I for one would not endorse a constitutional convention - it'd end up being a nightmare with worse consequences than ever anticipated... unlike the original convention, which was actually a coup over what had been merely altering some of the Articles of Confederation, and which was managed in an age where communication took longer and the true nature not exposed until it was a fate accompli, this new convention would open all manner of odds and unprincipled efforts to make it more to the tune of those now in power as never before - to officialize what they now are seeking to instill... and no, do not think there'd be measures of reasoned thoughts as were in the original, with federalists and anti-federalists arguing in coherent thoughts on the merits or not - rather, there'd be violence amok from every manner of powerlusters, a last ditch standing of coercion to achieving what it seems they might not now be able or willing to achieve...

A large degree of it has to do with the times we're living in. The election of Barack Obama in addition to the TARP bail-out under George W. Bush has brought about more unity between conservatives and libertarians than has been seen in the last thirty years. Both camps see Barack Obama as a threat to the values they hold dear and the state of the economy has largely pushed social issues and foreign policy under the rug. If a Republican is elected President in 2012, the sniping between conservatives and libertarians will start up again. Until then, they're united under a common enemy.

To his credit, Glenn Beck is not a Republican hack and was very critical of George W. Bush going back to his Headline News program. If a Republican President who pushes a big-government agenda like Bush is elected, I would hope Beck would stay consistent.

Excellent.

You are correct John. Moreover, he has pushed Ayn and Atlas Shrugged and her ideas more than any major voice in media ever.

Shall we not look a really great gift horse in the mouth. I would walk with the Devil himself on the same path to move our agenda forward.

Adam

True - after all, walking with Lucifer is like walking with the 'bringer of light'...

No, this will be the good old-fashioned situation of being for the people able to be in the room. No show stuff or animosity, just sincere reason.

sincere reason, with Christianity??

Dennis,

It's not a great documentary, but I consider it excellent because you get to see some things that are only alluded to in dark words or buried under a bunch of minutia and yelling in the mainstream. (Sort of how the global warming thing has been argued.)

Here is one (added by some further information not in the film):

Believe it or not, most people I know have no idea why the approval of the Israeli state came about establishing it where it is today, other than the Jews needed a safe haven and there are some Jewish historical-holy places around there.

But why there?

Why not, say, in South America, or some place in Europe, since the Allies gave huge portions to Russia after WWII? Surely they could have sliced off a part of territory somewhere and given it to the Jews.

From a couple of offhand comments in the film, I finally understood.

Do you know what a Grand Mufti is? I never did, except for some kind of Walt Disney image of a Muslim person of power in a turban with camels and so forth.

A Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is a leftover from the Ottoman empire. He is a Muslim cleric and the official Muslim overseer of Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. This obviously gives him power, both real power and influence, and it has traditionally been exercised that way. During the time of the British Mandate, during the 1920's, they appointed a dude, Amin al-Husayni (or al-Husseini as it is often spelled), as the new Grand Mufti of Jerusalem when his half-brother died.

The world is usually a mess after a world war and that region was no exception after WWI. Also, dismantling an empire the size of the Ottoman empire is another mess with other issues. Hostilities are inevitable. The League of Nations had established the British Mandate after WWI to help keep a lid on hostilities until the dust settled. When the British appointed Amin al-Husayni as Grand Mufti, the idea was for him to keep a lid on hostilities on the Muslim side.

However...

That didn't work out so well...

Amin al-Husayni was a world class asshole and bigot who ended up sucking up to Hitler. He was the one who pushed that region into supporting the Nazis and spread bigotry wherever he went. He was persuasive, too. Outside of his charisma, Muslims take their holy men seriously.

Well, Hitler lost. That means his supporters lost. Here are some very obvious WWII facts:

(1) Hitler tried to eliminate the Jews,

(2) The Jews fervently wanted Jerusalem and surrounding region as an ideal place for a safe-haven country for religious-historical reasons, and

(3) Amin al-Husayni led the Muslims in that entire region (and even further) in the direction of supporting the Nazis and despising Jews.

In short, the Muslims around Jerusalem lost their moral position by being on the side of the bad guys in a world war--and losing. When you lose, you lose. Especially if your side attempts genocide.

Thus, after WWII, in 1947, the Jews were granted country status by the United Nations within demarcated boundaries inside of the British Mandate (which was being dismantled). The Arabs were given the other part, but they didn't like that situation one bit. They wanted the whole enchilada. The Jewish part shortly thereafter declared independence (one day before the British Mandate was shutting down) and the new country was called Israel.

Then all hell broke loose and it has been going on ever since.

Of course, there is a whole lot more to this, but basically, if Amin al-Husayni had not been such an asshole (and such a competent bigoted hater, at that), I believe history would have been very different.

But he and his cronies spread bigotry and spread it well. The fruits of their labors are still alive.

Also, as galling as defeat in a world war is, this was compounded by the fact that the very people the Muslim Nazi sympathizers thought would be serviced by genocide ended up taking over a portion of the lands they thought they would have been awarded by Hitler. And this was right in the middle of a bunch of Islamic holy sites to boot. (These are also Jewish holy sites, but for this mentality, that doesn't count.)

Anyway, that makes a lot more sense to me than all the double-speak and ham-handed reasoning I usually read.

If you wage war against a people (like the Muslims in the British Mandate did de facto), and try to eliminate them or support those who do, then lose, you will have to pay a price. You don't have to like it, but you do have to pay it. You even have to pay it if your side was the good guys. This is the way it has been throughout all of human history.

The ironic part is that the Jews did not fight WWII as an organized army. They, as civilians, just refused to die out from being savaged, especially by Nazi brutality. The USA and other allied forces stood up to the bullies for them and kicked some righteous ass.

But, from an outside-the-box angle, Israel actually owes a lot to Grand Mufti Amin al-Husayni. Without him and his spiteful efforts and vast influence in the local Muslim world, there might not even be an Israel. Palestine could have very easily become a single nation with cultural divisions, as happened in other parts of the world (like India) when the British withdrew.

Michael

yes, from other readings, that indeed about sums it up...

Folks:

Close down the thread the "g" spot does not exist!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6973971.ece

Really poor study from what I have been able to determine.

Adam

If it truly doesn't exist, then whatever I've been stimulating in my relationships of pleasuring is a terrific substitute!

Thanks for mentioning this movie, as I was unaware of it.

I also highly recommend Separate Tables, another movie (with David Niven) of a Rattigan play.

http://www.amazon.com/Separate-Tables-Rita-Hayworth/dp/B00005PJ6X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1262628298&sr=1-1

Quite a lot there, Robert. Some to quibble with, too. Mostly, though, I was thinking of how this could be marketed best. People like you and I have huge inventories of knowledge. (Thus the potential for quibbling: tomayto versus tomahto.) Why Ayn Rand draws among young people, frankly, is that they don't know any better. I mean, at that stage in life, we have been exposed to few ideas and hers are the first that run contrary to the mainstream -- and only the game fish swim upstream. So, your book, would be a hot seller among high school nerds. I mean that. There's millions out there, new ones all the time.

Anyway...

Just to note, you talk about pastoralists raiding each other's herds. That would be the desire for "converts." Objectivists think that they can find communists, conservatives, or whateverists, and get them to join our camp. It is often put in those terms: The battle for ideas. The war for ideas. Our camp... their camp... We do not have a common language of trade that speaks of exchanges or networks. We do not trade ideas. I mean socialists are really good at socializing, so anyone who wanted to form an organization of people would want to pay attention to those ideas. Flags, songs, badges of honor, all of that has merit for an organization. Just for instance...

Even in the language of business -- especially from the universities, but commonly beyond them, as well -- we speak of winning markets (winning friends), having sales "territories" and so on. (I mean, you can work within a geography, but thinking of it as a territory versus a network is the telling point.)

Ayn Rand liked the phrase "the realm of ideas." Who will rule the realm of ideas? Who will set the standard? (Minas MNA the mina as a measure, the ruler being the mark of measure, all of that.) It would kill them to understand that in the ancient Greek world, there were "standards" of coinage that allowed 4 of yours to be 5 of theirs. The troy ounce solved some of those problems between the Latin south and the Viking north and it was not decreed by law.

So, for Objectivists, trashing John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham is more important than showing the congruities of their ideas with Ayn Rand's new discoveries and inventions. We have this argument going on in another topic about Islam and Libertarianism. So far, no one has asked the Muslim businessman to explain commerce under shariah law. They do not want to trade. They want to beat the ideological stuffing out of this intruder into their territory.

I quite agree... the pervasiveness of the Taking Syndrome - one's gain is another's loss, business is a form of combat, all relationships are adversarial and hierarchical, and so on, has made it very difficult to even among 'friends' grasp how to properly address the trader mindeset of relationships - of the sum-plus view of win-win for each party... and the idea that others have had ideas worth considering, even if in part, and that getting total non-contradictory understandings is hard to come by almost anyone - is difficult to get across to those who have not acquired that vast store of knowledge... easier to damn than to learn...

[except when it comes to pc, where the others' views are to be taken as benign and those dissidents among are thus aberrant and not exemplar... until it is one's own head rolling on the chopping block]