Marcus

Notice rhetoric isn't accepted (except that approved and dispensed by the authorities) in closed societies and dictatorships. They understand it's power. The pen is mightier than the sword.

@Michael Stuart Kelly You were making a moral equivalence. You equivocated a White Supremacist and Nazi, whose movement and idealogy has historically killed and destroyed the lives of untold millions of people with the low-brow, profit seeking political opportunism of Al Sharpton (Al Sharption is many things but not an advocate of genocide or violence). This is worse than a dumb comparison, it's dangerous and intellectually dishonest. That is what I addressed. Terrible error on your part and I was a bit surprised you even said it. Making false equivalencies is certainly not how you win arguments.

Sure. Just understand we may disagree. And I will also call out inconsistencies where I see it. If you fail to call out racists, I will do it for you. But I have nothing personal against you. If I didn't think this forum was "semi-intelligent" and capable of honest and good discussion I would not be here. I've been on this forum for years, you all should know how I operate.

We as in, you know, America. Obviously not you or me, but the country as a whole. I thought that was self-explanatory. I consider places that will have an open discussion (i.e. where dissent and independent thought is tolerated and encouraged).

Al Sharpton is not a black supremacist. Does not advocate black supremacy, separatism or genocide. He is a buffoon, yes. A self-serving trouble-starter, yes. But he is quite in a different league from Richard Spencer. We didn't fight a World War, losing millions of lives just so you can equate an opportunist with full blown Nazism/White Supremacy. I'm saying it.

Sure, people only died, dozens run over by car and brutally beaten by nazi thugs. I'm sure malcontents "shitting on cars" is much worse though.

A bizarrely tone deaf statement considering what "white power dudes" were actually doing that day. I guess you define "not destructive" differently? And we have an elected president who won't even name these hooligans. Goes back to my earlier point of Objectivism and America being at odds. These "white power dudes" are nothing short of a domestic terror group and should be treated as such.

Why single out just Google/Alphabet? What major company isn't "crony capitalist"? What major company isn't lobbying government? If they morally sanctioned his racism/sexism and allowed James Damore to stay would that make them more agreeable to you? If they dropped support for Clinton and became pro-Trump would this still be a problem? Its not Googles fault they have to lobby government in order to keep a gun from being pointed at *them*. Certainly they did not start out that way. Never mind Google is one of the worlds most productive and valuable companies with or without government aid. I see Google ads all over your site, for example. They're dominating advertising.

Just not to start another Google. Heh. Racists (with the exception of Hitler) don't tend toward having ambitions.

It's their company and they can run it however they see fit. Capitalism 101. James Damore and his ilk are free to set up their own Google competitor, exclude the "untermenschen" and employ 100% men if that's their prerogative. P.S. (Of course you and I both know he doesn't have the chops to do such a thing)

No I'm not claiming that. You are claiming that. I said nothing of the sort lol. I said Australia is more efficient in administering welfare which is true, but this is not the sole reason for their lower rate of government spending. Once again, putting words in my mouth and false statements. Here's what I said: I made that statement in response to this (your) quote: I said *what* the Australian government spends it on is irrelevant because it's still lower than the US. That's the point you keep not getting. You keep trying to argue around this simple fact lol. Where is your argument really?

Talking in riddles as usual Brant?

@merjet Whether the government blows it's citizens money on welfare or bombs it's irrelevant. Government as a percentage of GDP is markedly lower in Australia. That is is an undeniable fact. "Libertarian" countries don't spend half their GDP from the gov't. It's funny to watch you guys find twisty arguments to fit your narrative/beliefs about what America is. I'm not twisting/spinning my argument here. I'm saying flatly Australia is more free and less dominated by government than America is. I'm basing this purely on the data. You guys can come up with anecdotes or misinterpret articles all you want. The facts are what they are. It seems so many people here are so invested in this idea of "America the free", the whole narrative and everything. Maybe it's time to "re-visit" the story. If America is a "free" country we may as well believe in fire-breathing dragons too.

You don't seem to understand the article. The article is saying despite their welfare state, Australia's government still spends less than America does as a percentage of GDP, which is absolutely correct. Not only that, it is much more efficient and targeted (If you *must* have a welfare state, at least be smart about it). This further proves my point, not yours. Which is one of the reasons why Australia outranks America on freedom indexes. Check the figures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

Cool. Moving along...

@Michael Stuart Kelly I think more like an engineer, not so much a philosopher. Abstract concepts give way to practical ideas that have application in the here and now. I try though. This forum is kind of my way of working through my own thoughts/issues with Objectivism and getting feedback. It also gives me dead focus. I don't like pointless rambling on in threads that I start. It's disrespectful. I don't like when bumbling fools (peter) start racial sub-threads and hijack them. So I have a tendency to get "testy" with people who do annoying or disrespectful things. My goal is not to "boss" people but to stay on topic. Otherwise I'll just abandon the thread and it will most likely go nowhere. Or just leave the forum for a while and the place gets a lot less interesting. Say what you want about my threads, they are always interesting and drive a lot of views to your forum. Hope that clarifies my thought process a little. No need for policing or psychoanalysis, just ask politely, I'll tell you.

^ @Michael Stuart Kelly You've called me out on the above but still no real explanation as to the difference between those two statements? They both make reference to a) Objectivism in b) in similar terms. Are you arguing that Objectivists or Peikoff do not think that Objectivism is American? I'm just really confused as to what your trying to say overall. All that psychoanalysis stuff is unnecessary. What I care about here is discussing whether or not Objectivist ideas are fundamentally American or not. It's the only thing I will address.

Ok but you are playing with words. What is the difference between "Objectivism is an American Philisophy" and "Objectivism is pre-eminently an American viewpoint"? Semantics. Yes, it may not be an exact quote, the meaning is the same. Peikoff (and probably Rand) believed that Objectivism is quintessentially "American". I am here to tell you it is not. Let's argue that not semantics. What I know is that Australia consistently ranks higher than America on freedom indexes every year while America slips further down year by year. If Australia is a "tax grabbing, regulating, nanny state" what does that mean for America? Don't be the pot to call the kettle black. Brant Gaede, the stats on huge majorities of America are real. Actuallly worse yet, it has gone in the wrong direction. Americans who believe in God, angels, ghosts and other hokum are real. Sorry. No rational culture believes in such things. If they really took these books to heart, there would be tangible changes in the overall culture and politics of this country. Actually by the looks of things, it has gone in the wrong direction. Meanwhile, America slips in the freedom ranking while Hong Kong moves in the opposite direction. By the hard metrics, this not a good sign for Objectivism.

If I had to choose one country I would say Hong Kong (not China). Consistently ranked in the top 5 on every freedom index every year, low rates of religiosity, tremendous work ethic. By every conceivable metric they are far closer to Objectivism than Americans are. Whereas Americans seem to be getting lazier, dumber, more entitled and less free every year they seem to be going in the opposite direction. After that maybe Australia or Switzerland.

@Brant Jews are not a race thus you cannot really measure their IQ accurately as a group. If Jews are a race does that make Hispanics a "race"? No proper definition is ever given of exactly what constitutes a "Jew" whenever anyone makes any claims about "Jewish IQ". There are Jewish groups from all over the world, including black Ethiopian Jews. Second blacks are not really a monolithic group either. They come from various tribes and a geneticist will tell you they are the most diverse subset of humanity. If IQ has a genetic basis you will get wildly different scores and results. Can you compare Nigerians who seem to make up X percentage of Harvard with a Congolese and then lump them all into the same group? So in short, yes, it's nonsense. Done speaking on this as this is not the topic of this thread.

^ Hey look guy, dispense with the race/IQ nonsense. This is not the thread for that and no one asked you to bring it here. You think you can slickly insert your racist narrative where it is neither needed nor wanted. I don't care about your opinion of blacks, slavery or anything not related to this thread.

Slavery is an evil institution that should have never occurred in this country. But it did tragically. Slavery aside, the constitution is the foundation on which the unity and prosperity of America is built. The "people" get in the way half of the time. The other half doesn't care.

Going by that logic I guess communist China (a growing superpower) also qualifies as "close to Objectivism"? Most of the growth in the American economy occurred during its freest period (1800's) which further underlies my point. America is today sailing off of the past. America today is technologically stagnant, with low GDP growth rates, high taxes, and endless state interventions and programs. Countries have cultures and individuals follow cultural rules and ideas. We don't live in a cultural vacuum devoid of the influence of others. Observing simple trends in society you can get a general sense of what ideas people do or don't accept. It's quite clear that Objectivism is not well liked or accepted within the American ideascape. The people of America are nowhere near close to Objectivism. The constitution and early founding documents which we rely upon to run our society is. That is the difference and the only reason America is still a relatively wealthy, functioning country.

On it's face, this statement couldn't actually be any more false. To think a philosophy created by a Jewish woman who was an immigrant with a thick Russian accent as fundamentally American seems absurd. As you look deeper, you find it to be even more untrue. In America, no matter how many copies of Atlas Shrugged are sold every year, Objectivism is relegated to the status of a fringe philosophy. And despite even this fringe status, it is attacked viciously by both the left and the right in the media on an almost seemingly daily basis. It is not respected, or even properly understood by the average American. If Objectivism is a fundamentally American system of ideas, why so much animosity towards it? Every indication in America life tells us we are going in the opposite direction to the Objectivist ideal. In economics, the public wants more state interventions in the economy, tariffs on China, monopoly busting and higher taxes on the rich, in politics, it wants the "lowest common denominator" type of person win, i.e. persuasive, popular hucksters or borderline criminals to sell them platitudes and vulgar jingoistic rhetoric, not well reasoned policy. In ethics, it wants some combination or variation thereof of pragmatism or altruism. In metaphysics/epistemology, most Americans believe in God, angels, demons , skepticism/cluelessness, something for nothing, (see economics), racial stereotypes and other silly and irrational concepts not befitting a generally civilized society. Americans believe these things far more than even Europeans do. If is was not clear to you by that America philosophically is actually one of the furthest countries from Objectivism, (and this has been true for some time) it should be now. America is a country literally held by the "string" of it's original founding documents and legal system, that prevent it plunging face-first into barbarism, poverty and irrationality. In other words, America is a country held on by it's past, not it's future. Objectivism, is not an American philosophy per se and most Americans do not like Objectivism very much. In truth to call Objectivism "American" is far too gracious a statement, Americans don't really have a coherent philosophy. Though it is a "western" philosophy in the tradition of Aristotle. If anything, it's a Russian-Jewish philosophy that was imported to America, like so many other ideas. Discuss.

^ He's an "idealogical purist" i.e.a head in the clouds, "pure capitalism in one election" guy. Trump represents a small, incremental movement in the right direction, if ever so slightly. That's a win in my book. He at least says he plans to lower taxes and regulations significantly. Clinton represents a movement in the opposite direction. Voting for her is not a "rational" decision in any event.