Aaron

I saw those from D Friedman too. I hope it's not GHS, but fear it is. I've not been able to find any other confirming or refuting evidence online.

MSK- I'm thankful you have created and maintained an active Objectivist forum, complete with 'Events and Happenings' area. This seemed a perfect place to announce ATLOSCon. I tend to avoid spending time or focus on most Oist personal or philosophical conflicts or schisms, and as a result am generally unaware of them. When I posted I did not know of such a conflict concerning Diana Hsieh or other speakers vs yourself or Objectivist Living. Looking for 'False Friends of Objectivism' now, I find the page http://www.dianahsieh.com/ff/. It does not appear to name you or OL, though regardless, I believe you concerning there being substantial conflicts. If you consider them sufficient reason to not list this year's ATLOSCon on OL, please let me know and I can remove the posting. Thanks- Aaron

Phil- Thanks for sharing that, and for your graciousness and attitude. It makes me hope to meet you more, maybe at a future ATLOSCon or other conference. Chris- Thanks for the positive comments on lodging and under-25 discount. I'm sorry the speaker line-up will keep you a way this year, but hope you will still consider coming in the future.

I just noticed that you are considering coming with Phil, so just wanted to say that whatever your concerns with certain speaker(s) you are definitely welcome to come, and I'd like to meet y'all.

James - I hope you do make it! I'd love to meet you. Shea's session is definitely on my list too. Phil - Thanks for your comments and vote of confidence. I definitely am encouraged by more 'grassroots' regional organizations and conferences - Atlanta of course, but also more activity in Chicago, Denver, Baltimore, Kansas City, etc. (Think globally, act locally?) For the record- Atlanta Objectivist Society (AOS or ATLOS) may be distributing promotional flyers from various Objectivist organizations who send us materials, but is not ARI or TAS sponsored. ATLOSCon is organized by Kelly Elmore, and other ATLOS functions are organized either by her or by Jenn Casey, with many other local ATLOS members volunteering and assisting. ATLOSCon is not OCON, nor is it intended to be. This is a labor of love by people who are passionate about Objectivism as well as other diverse interests, and want to meet and share these values with others.

Treating this sincerely, yes, many of us (locals and out-of-towners) are into working out and hiking, in addition to pursuing other values. Concerning music, there's not a formal session (other than 'Math of Music), though at the evening party there's likely to be some Objectivist-themed filking. It's a fun, eclectic group. Aaron

I do not know Diana Hsieh well, having just met her recently at SnowCon, though I like what I've seen and like her work on projects like OLists. I understand that - like many Objectivists - she has been involved in various scuffles and has her opponents. I have no interest or time for arguing about anyone's personal values or faults, but do hope that if any potential attendees are not a fan of a particular speaker, they do not let it turn them off from the whole conference and all the other great sessions and events. (Sometimes I fear every Objectivist gathering will be empty otherwise)

I do not know Diana Hsieh well, having just met her recently at SnowCon, though I like what I've seen and like her work on projects like OLists. I understand that - like many Objectivists - she has been involved in various scuffles and has her opponents. I have no interest or time for arguing about anyone's personal values or faults, but do hope that if any potential attendees are not a fan of a particular speaker, they do not let it turn them off from the whole conference and all the other great sessions and events. (Sometimes I fear every Objectivist gathering will be empty otherwise)

The Atlanta Objectivist Society is thrilled to announce that it’s time to register for our second annual conference, ATLOSCon! The conference will be held on Memorial Day weekend, May 26-30, 2011. We have many different classes to choose from, ranging from Objectivist epistemology to swing dancing, including business, philosophy, art, exercise, sex, parenting, and science. We also have a large variety of social events planned, including hiking, eating, partying, and working out together. Many of the classes have limits on the number of attendees, so if you are coming (and we hope you are!), we recommend that you sign up as soon as possible. We can house a limited number of out-of-towners, so if the cost of lodging would keep you from coming, please email Kelly Elmore for more information. If you are under the age of 25, we have a 20% discount available. Email Kelly Elmore for more details about how to get the young ‘uns discount (before you register). For more information, see the conference schedule, class descriptions, and speakers at http://www.atlantaobjectivists.com/atloscon-schedule/. The registration page can be found at http://www.rsvpbook.com/event.php?403563. I hope to see you there! Aaron

I was just about to post saying class schedule and registration was up. Thanks for beating it to me here! Aaron

ATLOSCon 2011 planning has begun! This year, our Atlanta Objectivist Society’s summer conference will be held on Memorial Day weekend, May 26-30, 2011, and we are currently accepting proposals for talks. The talks should be an hour in length (we might make a few exceptions, if you can prove that you are super fascinating for longer than that), and they should be of general interest to an Objectivist audience, though they need not be about Objectivism itself. In order to give a talk, please send a paragraph describing your talk to kellyelmore79@gmail.com by Feb 1. Our committee will choose the talks, and only if your talk is chosen will you need to send in more detailed info about your talk. Please know that you need not be an expert on your topic. Many of our speakers last year were laymen with a strong passion for their subject, and they were fabulous talks. Here is a list of topics to give you an idea of the kinds of things that we are looking for, but please don’t limit yourselves to these. Talk about anything you are passionate about! Any topic for beginner Oists from any branch of philosophy or any application More advanced philosophical talks from metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, or art Science talks Art or Literature talks Atheism Benevolent Universe Premise A Talk about an Ayn Rand essay Lead a Discussion about: Politics, Personal Experiences in Oism, activism, economics, etc. Dealing with Family Rationally Cooking or Nutrition Exercise/Crossfit Free Market Alternatives to Government Services Lead a Discussion of an article Goal Setting/GTD/Productivity Parenting/Education Atlas Shrugged presentation or discussion Talk about your Career Psychology Financial Planning You get the idea; go wild with creativity! Our speakers will not be paid, but they may be able to attend the conference for free, if ATLOSCon generates enough income. Mostly you will be paid in fun and fame!

Of course. To think that there will never be murder is unrealistic and utopian - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose and try to prevent or punish murder. With regard to government specifically, I'd say that anyone who truly thinks it will be reduced to zero (or who thinks whatever government exists will be all good) is also being utopian. However, that doesn't mean it's not worth trying to diminish what we have and keeping a system which does not institutionalize coercion as an ideal and target. Aaron

After traversing the road from minarchism to anarchocapitalism and back, I don't know whether your statement is incredibly cynical - but I do think it's true. Aaron

MSK- I don't imply anything psychological such as getting glee from targeting innocents. But terror bombing was about that and not about targeting a bad guy and accidentally getting a bystander as a casualty - as you implied incorrectly with your phrase 'avoiding killing the wrong person'. What I said concerning bystander deaths in an act of defense being on the aggressor was clearly in the context of aimed response at an aggressor and accidental bystander casualties. I even gave the specific individual level example of shooting back at a mall shooter. The concept is badly abused by some Oists who'd attempt to argue that turning Iran, Pakistan, Japan, USSR, etc. into glass would be/would have been OK, but that's a mockery of the idea. I find it very ironic that you're trying to associate me with that abusive view (which I've repudiated before) especially given our respective views on the acceptability of bombing population centers. James- Thanks for the comments. I wouldn't use her for argument from authority and I expect Rand and I would have specific disagreements on this topic, but I do think her approach on modern foreign affairs would have been closer to mine than the interventionist and 'total war' views widespread in Objectivism now. Brant- Ba'al makes you, MSK, Yaron Brook, etc. look like bleeding heart pacifists. I vacillate between viewing him as psychopath or troll, but I know he's not an Objectivist and am not nearly as concerned with his "kill 'em all, salt the earth" rants as with the views of other Objectivists. Aaron

Brant, MSK- The latest posts are orthogonal to mine, and unless I just wanted to repeat previous questions I'm not sure what else to say. I am drained by the new reminder of the widespread Oist views on war. I remember being surprised and appalled 5 years ago when seeing Yaron Brook speak when he called for (before leaving Iraq to invade Iran) picking some Iraqi city to level and kill all inhabitants as an example. I've argued against the Brook/Epstein views plenty, and struggled with finding myself so at odds and that I'm more likely to have, say, JR or GHS agree with me than other Oists. However, I've come to be secure that my views being the proper ones from Objectivist ethics, and the widespread advocacy of targeting innocents (be it by specific rationale of collective guilt, pragmatism, or considering morality inapplicable) is a big mistake and to the detriment of the modern Objectivist movement. It's still disturbing to run into such ideas, though the surprise is gone. Aaron

Obviously I don't agree with your simple statements that targeting innocents '[was] justified'. Are you arguing that the actions were moral, such as due to collective guilt? Or that morality didn't apply and 1941-1945 was anything-goes? I don't think you're fair to the options at hand, e.g. Japan was already attempting negotiated surrender, albeit unfortunately attempting to use USSR as the mediator without knowing the dealings at Yalta and that the USSR had no interest in brokering peace. Further, you're not being creative. Let the Russkies do more of the fighting and dying in Asia, assassinate, aid coups. Or you could take the Japanese living in America with families back in Japan - many already conveniently rounded up in camps - and start the policy of torture, rape and murder of one per day til the Japanese government surrendered. You could drop leaflets about the plan, and then photos or newsreels of each day on Japan when enacted. Certainly I find this idea antithetical to individual rights, and utterly horrific. Yet I do not see how anyone considering it moral to intentionally kill innocents (or who's discarded morality as inapplicable) could do so. What do you think? Aaron

I recognize a limited place where this kind of awful emergency situation exists, e.g. if you're in a concentration camp and forced by guards to make a 'Sophie's choice' or die. But trying to extend that to apply to hundreds of millions of people over five years seems more than a bit abusive of the concept - similar to how the fundies abuse the bystander/hostage concept as applying to any individual in a huge geographical area. The end result of what you're saying sounds like worldwide 'morality is out the window; anything goes'. Given such a view, I don't see how it would be possible to view anything as wrong or evil (at least on the part of Americans) for the entirety of WWII. How about domestic policies - is 90+% taxation justified, wrong, or simply 'out the window'? Rationing and state control of production? Interment of Japanese? The draft? If you make a moral call on any of these, how? Aaron

'Counted on' is a mighty strong requirement - not realistic or necessary. Police or military can't be counted on to stop mass murders when they occur either. We're talking about a sudden deadly situation well outside the norms, almost inevitable that some people will die before others can even identify the danger, and the best thing to be hoped for is to cut short the killing and keep the death count from rising. Your diminishing of private gun owners in such a capacity is simply not fair or accurate. They can and have helped cut short mass murders before - e.g. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml, http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm. Aaron

I don't really get the shark comic. But I somehow suspect it's related to why I find http://theoatmeal.com/comics/ptero absolutely hilarious - even though I don't really understand the 'why' for that either. Aaron

I reject this entire formulation. The ARI fundies like to use this pass-the-buck attitude to justify indifference to killing. I hold that killing should never be a topic of indifference, and I also hold that morality has nothing to do with this situation in a trade-off manner ("I take the blame for you killing this one, but you take the blame for me killing that one." I.e., using human lives like poker chips in a casino.) Really? Think about the simple case of individuals, not nations where they go wrong. And I'm not talking about 'take the blame' in an empty poker chip sense or the way government officials 'take the blame' for something horrific and face no consequences; taking the blame how I'm referring to it would mean 'you are a murderer and other people are justified in killing you'. I recognize it may be possible to construct difficult, sticky situations in between where it may be a tough call. However, the cases we're talking about with war are in the easy extreme, killing 100,000 people and trying to rationalize it because a few might be guilty. I remember an example from a big war discussion on SOLOP a couple years ago of a crazed shooter in a mall. If you shoot back at them and accidentally hit someone else, that's the situation I'm talking about. One poster (a defender of the Brook/Epstein party line) actually argued that you could just intentionally kill everyone in the mall in hopes of taking out the shooter. I think that demonstrates the difference between collateral damage and where 'fundies' go wrong in outright advocating mass murder. Despite adding an 'it was horrible... but' qualifier, it sounds like you ultimately agree that massive bombings targeting innocents 'had to be done' since the ends justified the means. That view seems very surprising especially being against even the individual bystander case. Am I misunderstanding what you wrote? Aaron

Arguing against collateral damage is not the same as arguing against intentionally killing innocents. I agree that accidentally hitting a hostage or bystander when shooting back at an attacker is regrettable but ultimately on the hands of the attacker. However, sometimes Objectivists - including big-Os such as Brook and Epstein in their 'Just War Theory vs. American Self Defense' - make the serious mistake of instead attempting to justify intentionally targeting innocents, not just collateral damage. Some such attempts misplace individualism with collectivism when talking about foreign policy - e.g. attempting to treat 'Japan', 'US', etc. as individuals in an ethical equation and forgetting that those are placeholder collectives and the individuals still exist. Trying to justify killing anyone and everyone in a geographical area because the government in control of that area attacked someone else ignores the individuals. This attempt at collective guilt ultimately requires a collectivist, 'hive' view of ethics, at odds with Objectivism. Sometimes simple pragmatism - 'end justifies the means' comes in too. This form seems generally behind the rationalization of Dresden, Hiroshima, etc. (fortunately I don't see many Oists arguing that every German or Japanese civilian 'deserved it'). Whether those mass killings of civilians actually led to the desired end may even be in question, but regardless the means is completely at odds with an individualist ethics including non initiation of force. Usually someone arguing pragmatically will back off when faced with a question like 'if the My Lai massacre helped motivate N Vietnamese, surrender would it be justified?' or 'if raping and murdering every third Japanese girl in America helped motivate Japan to surrender, would it be justified?'. It's not clear why they back off, though, as once someone accepts such pragmatism there isn't an objective basis for guidelines. (I'm not concerned with non-Objectivists here; obviously it's possible to have someone embrace more twisted ethics.) Aaron

Of course, it wasn't that Napoleon III went too soft on the Germans by not murdering them when he had the chance. The German states simply kicked France's ass in the Franco-Prussian war. Now I'm just waiting for the wish of 'if only the Mongols had continued their campaign across Europe, it would have preventing all the awful conflicts that followed'. Aaron

There were other small terrorist attacks - e.g. arguably DC sniper, definitely anthrax letters. No terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 happened before Bush either - but it doesn't make any more or less sense to attribute that to the policies of Clinton, Bush I, etc. 9/11 was a singular, horrific event, that was executed with remarkable planning and took advantage of relative public complacency about hijackings. There's little to infer from that single day's attacks about presidential policies before or since. The mindset change from 'assume hijacking is a joyride to Cuba' to 'assume every hijacking is deadly' made the circumstances required for 9/11 break down even with United 93 and ever after. Aaron

BaalChatzaf- Contrary to your previous claims, USSR did fight Japan in China in Aug 1945. The Japanese forces were defeated and Manchuria taken very quickly, and Japan considered this entry of USSR into war as relevant as the Hiroshima+Nagasaki bombings in the timing of the surrender. The UK invading Argentina would have killed millions of Brits. It's a good thing Maggie avoided that by nuking Buenos Aires back in '82! And that US invasion of the Soviet Union would have been awful; it was to have killed every US male between 19 and 90, and been the equivalent of at least 12,000(!) Normandys! We're blessed that such horrendous casualties were avoided by nuclear annihilation of the Russkies to end the Cold War. Nevermind arguing your unsupported forecasts about deaths, you're still touting the same false dichotomy. You're also ignoring the military views concerning surrender, invasion, etc. "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." --- I wrote most of this response earlier, and just saw your poison gas thread and advocacy of genocide in war. I'd given you the benefit of the doubt based on MSK's words, but now consider you at best simply a troll. Aaron

Strawman. I've never claimed slaughtering the citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki any different in kind than Tokyo or Dresden, and your advocacy of mass murder is made no better or worse by the method you wish to use to achieve it. Aaron