Greetings

[J.K. Gregg]

Hello fellow Objectivists,

For online purposes, my name is J.K. Gregg. I've been an Objectivist for only about five years and am still very new to the philosophy as a whole. I have read a variety of Rand's books, including Atlas Shrugged and Anthem. Anthem in particular was the first work of Rand's I read, and it began a monumental change in my life.

I have been an active member of the Google Group OActivists - a group of Objectivists that try and advocate Rand's ideas in the varying mediums of journalism. I have a blog that I use as an intellectual playground, Persona Non Grata, and I've also published a few works with The American Thinker (an online daily magazine).

Ever since I shifted from being a Libertarian to an Objectivist, I've found very few individuals I can talk to about my views and philosophy. My fiancé, bless her heart, is not very political or interested much in philosophy so I've been on a search for Objectivist communities that I can integrate with and further develop my understanding of Objectivism.

I am 22 years old. In December 2010 I graduated from the University of California - Riverside with a bachelors degree in International Affairs. I'm currently attending graduate school online with American Public University in their Intelligence Analysis program. My ultimate career goals are to serve my country in a civilian capacity, hopefully in the intelligence field.

As I already alluded, I'm engaged to a wonderful woman. I'm living in California's capital city, Sacramento. I'm excited to meet all of you and enjoy stimulating conversation with fellow Objectivists.

Best,

J.K. Gregg

P.S. - I've noticed that George H. Smith frequents this forum. I read his book Atheism - The Case Against God and very much enjoyed it. I had no idea Mr. Smith was an Objectivist until I started reading his book and noticed the references to Rand. It only made the book more enjoyable.

Edited June 6, 2011 by J.K. Gregg

[Brant Gaede]

Hi, J.K.. Welcome.

George is not an Objectivist. There are a lot of not-an Objectivists here.

Since George is an anarchist out of respect to Ayn Rand, whom he greatly admires, he doesn't call himself an Objectivist.

Since I'm not an anarchist, and for other reasons, I do.

--Brant

[syrakusos]

Welcome aboard. J.K.! Engaged political discussions are abundant here. You will need a thick skin.

[Rich Engle]

Welcome aboard. J.K.! Engaged political discussions are abundant here. You will need a thick skin.

Now don't go scaring the fellow, Michael . . .that could happen soon enough.

This is great--someone with a fresh degree in international affairs!

Welcome!

rde

[william.scherk]

I have been an active member of the Google Group OActivists - a group of Objectivists that try and advocate Rand's ideas in the varying mediums of journalism. I have a blog that I use as an intellectual playground, Persona Non Grata, and I've also published a few works with The American Thinker (an online daily magazine).

You probably understand, JK, given your membership at the closed shop OActivists, that this place OL is on the blacklist and that by becoming a member here you have sinned against church teachings:

To join the OActivists mailing list, you must meet two criteria:

You must be an Objectivist, meaning that you agree with and live by the principles of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism as best you understand them.

You must be committed to engaging in intellectual activism to promote Objectivist ideas in online or print forums as time permits. At minimum, that means engaging in some form of activism -- whether posting comments on newspaper articles or writing your representatives -- at least once every few months. Arguing with people already substantially familiar with Objectivism in online forums does not qualify as activism.

Note: You do not qualify as an Objectivist if you consider yourself to be a libertarian (or associate with the Libertarian Party), advocate revising Objectivism (like David Kelley's "open system"), or associate with the false advocates of Objectivism (most notably David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, and Chris Sciabarra).

-- the OActivist group seems like a very tight, constricting glove. I hope you can adjust to the more free-wheeling atmosphere here. OL is not haunted by orthodoxy, and as has been mentioned, not everyone who posts here labels themself an Objectivist, regardless of their admiration for Rand and her achievements. There are a couple of threads that deal with the labeling requirements for Objectivish people, including my rather sardonic take on this issue: I think the term can safely be dropped by those who do not follow the hard-packed road of Hsieh and Co.

[J.K. Gregg]

George is not an Objectivist. There are a lot of not-an Objectivists here.

I had no idea! Very interesting. Thanks for the heads-up.

You probably understand' date=' JK, given your membership at the closed shop OActivists, that this place OL is on the blacklist and that by becoming a member here you have sinned against church teachings[/quote']

I do realize this. However, being so new to the philosophy and community, I'm not quite familiar with all the nuances and divisions within Objectivism, nor do I even know if I comprehend them at this point in my understanding. My membership of this board and that community are for... get this... purely selfish reasons.

Welcome aboard. J.K.! Engaged political discussions are abundant here. You will need a thick skin.

Fear not Mr. Marotta. My skin is as thick as they come. Thanks for the warm welcome (and the visit to the blog).

[Brant Gaede]

Welcome aboard. J.K.! Engaged political discussions are abundant here. You will need a thick skin.

That's because I have a thin skin.

--Brant

[anthony]

Welcome aboard. J.K.! Engaged political discussions are abundant here. You will need a thick skin.

That's because I have a thin skin.

--Brant

No!

Who'd have thought?

Welcome to OL, J.K.

Tony

Edited June 7, 2011 by whYNOT

[Rich Engle]

Welcome aboard. J.K.! Engaged political discussions are abundant here. You will need a thick skin.

That's because I have a thin skin.

--Brant

Yeah, I guess that is kind of how it works, if you think about it . . .

[Xray]

Welcome to OL, J.K.!

I'm no Objectivist, but have found OL to be an intellectully stimulating and lively place, and like it that a motley crew are posting here.

You probably understand, JK, given your membership at the closed shop OActivists, that this place OL is on the blacklist and that by becoming a member here you have sinned against church teachings:

To join the OActivists mailing list, you must meet two criteria:

You must be an Objectivist, meaning that you agree with and live by the principles of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism as best you understand them.

You must be committed to engaging in intellectual activism to promote Objectivist ideas in online or print forums as time permits. At minimum, that means engaging in some form of activism -- whether posting comments on newspaper articles or writing your representatives -- at least once every few months. Arguing with people already substantially familiar with Objectivism in online forums does not qualify as activism.

Note: You do not qualify as an Objectivist if you consider yourself to be a libertarian (or associate with the Libertarian Party), advocate revising Objectivism (like David Kelley's "open system"), or associate with the false advocates of Objectivism (most notably David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, and Chris Sciabarra).

-- the OActivist group seems like a very tight, constricting glove. I hope you can adjust to the more free-wheeling atmosphere here. OL is not haunted by orthodoxy, and as has been mentioned, not everyone who posts here labels themself an Objectivist, regardless of their admiration for Rand and her achievements. There are a couple of threads that deal with the labeling requirements for Objectivish people, including my rather sardonic take on this issue: I think the term can safely be dropped by those who do not follow the hard-packed road of Hsieh and Co.

I'm just beginning to get familiar with the splits in Objectivism because I got interested in David Kelley's position.

The rigidity of some fundamentalist groups is so extreme that it is impossible for any individualism to grow on this kind of 'mental soil'.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

You will need a thick skin.

Perhaps, but have you noticed how polite and civilized OL has become since our Hall Monitor departed? Very little bickering and almost no spirited name calling

I cannot take much more of this. Something needs to be done.

Ghs

[Peter]

George wrote:

Perhaps, but have you noticed how polite and civilized OL has become since our Hall Monitor departed? Very little bickering and almost no spirited name calling . . . I cannot take much more of this. Something needs to be done.

End quote

Did I miss something? Are the Kelly's on vacation?

What happened, George, to your usual smiley face, you bleeping @#$%^. 8 - )

My theory is that George H. Smith is an Objectivist with one glaring anomaly – an anomaly he will never describe in any detail, which is so glaringly incongruous it reminds me of "alien abduction syndrome." I will call it "abduction, a mere one time from his senses syndrome," or "rational anarchy theory"- RAT for short.

I agree George, it is quiet this summer. Light some fireworks, brother!

And, welcome to our Newbie!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Edited June 9, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[Xray]

I cannot take much more of this. Something needs to be done.

Ghs

Ask and ya shall receive:

George wrote:

What happened, George, to your usual smiley face, you bleeping @#$%^. 8 - )

My theory is that George H. Smith is an Objectivist with one glaring anomaly – an anomaly he will never describe in any detail, which is so glaringly incongruous it reminds me of "alien abduction syndrome." I will call it "abduction, a mere one time from his senses syndrome," or "rational anarchy theory"- RAT for short.

I agree George, it is quiet this summer. Light some fireworks, brother!

Reading this makes me think it might be you who has some 'anarchical' streak, PT.

Ever since I shifted from being a Libertarian to an Objectivist, I've found very few individuals I can talk to about my views and philosophy.

J.K, it would interest me why you shifted to Objectivism.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

You probably understand' date=' JK, given your membership at the closed shop OActivists, that this place OL is on the blacklist and that by becoming a member here you have sinned against church teachings[/quote']

I do realize this.

I’ve made a quite a few posts on OO lately, and have only received one warning. I’ve had quite a few posts deleted, but most of those were because I got into it with an anti-semite and they deleted every thread the guy started. So maybe there’s a thaw in progress, Peikoff having disgraced himself in such a way that no one can rationalize his behavior anymore.

What happened, George, to your usual smiley face, you bleeping @#$%^. 8 - )

Haven’t had a good beating lately, Peter?

Ever since I shifted from being a Libertarian to an Objectivist, I've found very few individuals I can talk to about my views and philosophy.

What does this mean? What did a shift from Libertarian to Objectivist consist of, for you? I imagine you didn't change your political views.

[Selene]

Ever since I shifted from being a Libertarian to an Objectivist, I've found very few individuals I can talk to about my views and philosophy.

What does this mean? What did a shift from Libertarian to Objectivist consist of, for you? I imagine you didn't change your political views.

Welcome to OL Greg.

Actually, ND raises a very interesting question. Since I have seen the predominant movement, in terms of numbers, "from Objectivism" to libertarianism, constitutional conservatism, and anarcho-capitalism, I also would be interested in what prompted the shift, if you can identify it, or was it a drifting to Objectivism?

Adam

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

Reading this makes me think it might be you who has an anarchical streak, PT.

end quote

Angela, you don't know nuttin,' you wascally wabbit. I see Gemany now has nude hiking trails, which makes me itch just thinking about it..

The new guy addressed his first post to "fellow objectivists," and I expect he wants to eventually discuss O'ism. With Objectivists - so, don't scare him off.

Peter

[George H. Smith]

Ever since I shifted from being a Libertarian to an Objectivist, I've found very few individuals I can talk to about my views and philosophy.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by shifting from libertarianism to Objectivism. Many Objectivists and neo-Objectivists also call themselves libertarians. This is because Objectivism is a comprehensive philosophy, whereas libertarianism is a strictly political classification. The limited government philosophy of Ayn Rand is a type of libertarianism.

Ghs

[J.K. Gregg]

Well, allow me to describe -- in brief -- my political maturing.

I became interested in politics on September 11th, 2001. 9/11 was such a dramatic event, it really sparked great curiosity within me to learn more about the world (i.e. why this happened; who did it; what do "they" believe; what do "we" believe; etc.) My family fostered that curiosity in a conservative context. My Grandfather and Uncle -- who are the political ones of the family -- are very conservative and guided my thinking towards conservatism. It wasn't long before I became a flag waving, gun-touting, kill-em-all neoconservative. I joined a few online forums, surrounded myself with other Republicans, and spent my free time bashing leftists as country-hating simpletons.

Once I entered college, I met who is now one of my best friends. He was (and continues to be) a very intelligent and cogent person. I immediately admired his clarity of speech, his thoughtful logic, and unemotional reasoning. He was a libertarian. We would spend hours debating and conversing over every issue you could think of and those long conversations took their toll on my conservative psyche. It first began with gay rights (he was gay and that was "his issue"). The logic of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and its universality began to question other premises I had with other subjects like Social Security, and foreign policy. Little did I know but I was dabbling in a philosophical structure and had no idea.

College really brought out the intellectual in me. I developed a thirst for political theory that seemed to never be quenched. But one day, while I was looking for some libertarian quotes, I ran across the following Ayn Rand quote:

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

I absolutely loved it. I had never heard of Ayn Rand before, but that single quote sparked my interest. I browsed the web to find a plethora of information about Rand and Objectivism. It seemed to resonate with me in a way that no other system did. Over the next four years, Rand's and other Objectivists' works are all I read. I first read Anthem, then Peikoff's OPAR, then tackled Atlas Shrugged in the summer of 2008. Since then I've been collecting other works like Dr. Tara Smith's books on values and rights, and Rand's other non-fiction.

Now, as Ninth Doctor correctly noted, I did not change my political views -- I found justification for them. See, as much as I enjoyed libertarianism, it was very pragmatic and experience-based. Arguments against government growth were nestled in the notion that such growth in the past has never quite worked and in some instances hurt more than helped. While I agreed with this, it didn't seem like an iron-clad argument to me. Those nagging "why" question always arose; why should the government not provide welfare?; why should the government only be restricted to the constitution? It was Objectivism that answered all my questions in a clear, logical way.

In 2001, I was a simplistic neoconservative Republican. Seven years later, I would fully embrace the term Objectivist. But, as I noted before, it has been a lonely trip. Even my gay friend remains a libertarian with serious objections to Objectivism. I'll tell you one final story:

One day, my father, after hearing me make some comment in response to something we heard on talk radio, asked me, "Why don't you want to do what Rush Limbaugh does? You know, like a radio talk show." And I responded, "You've probably seen on reality TV those people who are drug and alcohol-addicted welfare moochers with three kids of three fathers which they don't even parent properly. And you know how you have no sympathy for them when they complain that they never have time to party or enough money to pay the rent because they spent it all on booze, drugs, and something other than their children? Well, that's how I feel about America in general -- for years it has been chugging along the wrong path and my radio show would be the most boring because my answers would all be the same."

[syrakusos]

Only epistemology can save the world.

Now, as Ninth Doctor correctly noted, I did not change my political views -- I found justification for them. See, as much as I enjoyed libertarianism, it was very pragmatic and experience-based. Arguments against government growth were nestled in the notion ... It was Objectivism that answered all my questions in a clear, logical way.

It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand by Jerome Tucille, was first published in 1971, has been often in print, including a 25th anniversary edition from Laissez Faire Books, and is now available in a new edition, from iUniverse Press 2007.

Back in 1971, the "libertarian" movement was about to get a political party, but it had been launched a few years earlier at a convention of Young Americans for Freedom. Libertarians split from traditionalists on just the issue you cite: Ayn Rand - among other writers - provided justifications for items on the conservative agenda that were only habitual to traditionalists. Also, once subjected to scrutiny, some could not stand. Nativism is an example. Many conservatives still want to close the doors to immigration, only now they no longer call themselves "native Americans." The Vietnam War, conscription, and racial segregation were others.

The Libertarian Party, however, was problematic for Ayn Rand on several grounds. She felt that politics was near the end of the road, not the beginning. A philosophical and cultural revolution was needed, first. The LP challenged the GOP from the right, threatening to draw votes from it and some very high level Republicans were very much influenced by Rand and vice versa. The legalization of gold was not spontaneously generated from inanimate matter, for instance. And Ayn Rand would never allow marijuana, rock music, or other affects of the youth culture rebellion. So, there was that. The LP and Ayn Rand went separate ways as soon as the party was launched in 1972.

Objectivism always had a traditionalist conservative cultural alignment, mostly from the Cold War. Speaking of the influence of Objectivism, Nathaniel Branden once cited an FBI agent who took the name Wesley Mouch when under cover. Although it is likely that Ayn Rand did not support America's entry into World War II, that aspect of Objectivism never flowered in the shadow of the war against communism. Today some Objectivists advocate nuking Teheran. Every now and then some old-timer claims that he has a political economic individualist right to discriminate on the basis of race or gender (usually just race). He might. He also has a right to give all his money to a foundation that cares for aged race horses, but that would not be an objective virtue. So, traditionalist conservatives are still around, but so are libertarians. Ayn Rand denounced us; we did not return the nod. Myself, I happen to know for a fact that if you want to analyze the way the work really works here and now, you need to understand the actual profitability of private police, private armies, and private courts because the governments of the world account for maybe only one-third of the markets. Just sayin'...

And politics is near the end of the road. Have you read The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics by David Harriman, with an introduction by Leonard Peikoff. New American Library, July 2010. Paperback, 279 pages + vi, illustrations. $16.00. See, all the political arguing goes on because we lack standards of proof. Only epistemology can save the world.

[9thdoctor]

I did not change my political views -- I found justification for them. See, as much as I enjoyed libertarianism, it was very pragmatic and experience-based.

I’ve got news for you, you’re still a libertarian. Based on what you write, I suggest you look into the rationalism/empiricism dichotomy. What’s interesting is that you’re not even towing the orthodox line here, Peter Schwartz doesn’t claim that libertarianism means empiricism, he claims it’s the rejection of all philosophy, and of the need for philosophy. He gave a lecture on it that I heard (on tape), where, for his climax, he said NIOF is, for libertarians, an emotional ejaculation. Imagine his whiny voice building up to shouting that, EMOTIONAL EJACULATION!!!! That’s bullshit of course, and his essay is nothing but an appeal for insularity. And such is ARI’s history. Yaron Brook is, maybe, turning this around finally.

[Kat]

Hi J.K. Welcome to Objectivist Living. I hope you enjoy your time here and find interesting discussions. I'm always happy to see more Objectivists hanging around here. It keeps us on our toes.

I call myself an Objectivist, but also consider myself part libertarian and part conservative and I'm probably more liberal than most Objectivists. Like your friend I have issues with gay rights and some social issues that make me feel alienated from all the political parties. I think government should start from individual rights and go from there rather than trying to control the individual. I read something recently by Judge Napalatano where he said that democrats won't let people smoke cigarettes and the republicans won't let you smoke pot. Both parties want to control your behavior which is usually none of their concern. I thought that was a very interesting way of putting it... but then again libertarians can take it too far in the other direction and also tend to be too weak on foreign policy. I feel that it is important that we have solid principles to guide us along our way so we can all develop philosophically, and politics is only a small part of philosophy, although it tends to be the loudest.

Kat

[9thdoctor]

I’ve made a quite a few posts on OO lately, and have only received one warning. I’ve had quite a few posts deleted, but most of those were because I got into it with an anti-semite and they deleted every thread the guy started. So maybe there’s a thaw in progress, Peikoff having disgraced himself in such a way that no one can rationalize his behavior anymore.

Another sign of thaw is that people are citing and linking to JARS articles over there. Imagine if Andrew Bernstein did that!

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=21941&view=findpost&p=276461

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=21916&view=findpost&p=276321

[Xray]

Hi, J.K.. Welcome.

George is not an Objectivist.

George H. Smith called himself a "Voluntaryist".

Link to his post: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10330&st=320&p=131539entry131539

Link to his article: http://www.voluntaryist.com/backissues/001.pdf

Xray wrote:

Reading this makes me think it might be you who has an anarchical streak, PT.

end quote

Angela, you don't know nuttin,' you wascally wabbit.

The wascally wabbit was just teasing you a bit, Peter.

I see Gemany now has nude hiking trails, which makes me itch just thinking about it..

I had no idea that they objectively exist. Wait a minute, I'll do some googling ..

<googling>

OMG, here they are - even with a picture!! Be prepared for a little shock on seeing some veritable hunks hiking there!

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2076783,00.html

Edited June 13, 2011 by Xray

[Peter]

Angela wrote:

OMG, here they are - even with a picture!! Be prepared for a little shock on seeing some veritable hunks hiking there!

end quote

That guy was a hoot! 85 years old, no muscleclature to speak of, and nude as a door knob. What nerve, or was it just lack of sense on his parts?

Ghs the Voluntarist? How about "Sovereign Citizen?" You know, those survivalists who don't pay taxes, disobey a police warning, and resist arrest? Building a nuke in his garage - that's our George.

Peter

[Brant Gaede]

Angela wrote:

OMG, here they are - even with a picture!! Be prepared for a little shock on seeing some veritable hunks hiking there!

end quote

That guy was a hoot! 85 years old, no muscleclature to speak of, and nude as a door knob. What nerve, or was it just lack of sense on his parts?

Ghs the Voluntarist? How about "Sovereign Citizen?" You know, those survivalists who don't pay taxes, disobey a police warning, and resist arrest? Building a nuke in his garage - that's our George.

Peter

Even the young and beautiful usually look better with some clothes on. Except for the swimsuits, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue would be a bust. Sexual stories that don't start with clothes tend not to be very sexy. That's the literary strength of a "bodice ripper."

--Brant