Thanks for posting it, coaldigger! 👍

Not my words, a quoted post from Craig Bittle although I agree with every word.

Long post - phew!
But good thinking.

I agree with all of this. There needs to be a few simpler introductory portions to compel the reader/listener to continued thought and opening their mind.

For example, "because of this absolutism" is much more likely to precipitate cynicism than curiosity.
However, noting Objectivism is based on observation with one's own senses and the fundamentals of cause and effect, is more likely to cause interest.

I seek these nuggets to open people's minds. One open mind precipitates others... and a chain reaction. Prager is good at this, even with a poorer footing.

The enemy, Satan himself_, altruism (individual and institutional (socialism)) has developed prevalent viruses preying on natural tendencies, and is very good at this, even though their message is false and unfair. People here are smart. We should be able to prepare more compelling messages and understanding.

_ for illustration only; I am an atheist.

I believe the key to acceptance of Objectivism is self esteem. If you have it and value your own life above all else it is easy. Craig Bittle posted something the other day that made me realize that I was born to be an Objectivist. I don't have a link but I copied and saved it.

" The most important resource for understanding Objectivism is your own reasoning mind.
In a certain respect, this point is too obvious to warrant mentioning. In another respect, it can’t be emphasized enough. So I’ll say a few words about it upfront.
Objectivism is often misrepresented by those who fear its actual nature. One of the most widespread and destructive misrepresentations of the philosophy is the claim that it is a set of dogmas issued by Ayn Rand that you must accept and follow in order to be a “good Objectivist.” In other words, this assertion goes, the absolutism of Objectivism is like the dogmatism of religion: doctrinaire, authoritarian, confining.
But it is not. And understanding the difference is essential to understanding Objectivism.
Objectivism is indeed a philosophy of absolutes. It’s a system of black-and-white principles. It is also utterly non-dogmatic and profoundly liberating. And its reality-based, life-serving nature lies in the integration of these facts.
Objectivism identifies absolutes about the nature of reality, man’s means of knowledge, the requirements of human life, the source and nature of rights, the moral purpose of government. Its principles are black and white because reality is black and white: Things are what they are; they’re not what they’re not. An idea is either supported by evidence and logic, or it is not. An action either advances human life, or it does not. A law or policy either initiates physical force and thus violates individual rights, or it does not. And so on.
Objectivism recognizes and upholds such absolutes, but it does not call for you to accept them on faith or because some authority said so. Rather, Objectivism calls for you to look at reality for yourself, to use your own mind, and to draw first-hand conclusions on the basis of your own observations and logic. If an idea doesn’t make sense to you, if you don’t see how it is supported by facts, then, according to Objectivism, you should not accept it as true. And this applies emphatically to the principles of Objectivism.
This is the Objectivist principle of independence. And it too is an absolute: If you want to understand some aspect of reality, you must perceive the world with your own senses and integrate your observations with your own reasoning mind. Of course, you can learn from other people by listening to what they say, considering their arguments, observing their actions, and relating what they say or do to what you know. But the fact remains that in order genuinely to understand an idea, theory, or subject, you must rely ultimately on your own observations and logic. You must establish and maintain a primary orientation toward the facts as you see them, not toward the views or opinions of other people.
Because of this absolutism, Objectivism is profoundly liberating. It does not issue commandments or “categorical imperatives” from on high for you to obey. Rather, the philosophy identifies observation-based principles of the if-then variety—such as: If you want to understand reality, then you must observe reality and think. If you want to live and flourish, then you must think and act accordingly. If you want to live in a social system that enables human flourishing, then you must specify the nature of such a system and work to establish and maintain it.
Such principles are not dogmas. They are recognitions of the law of cause and effect. And they do not confine or constrict you. They free you.
Specifically, they free you from the subjectivist nonsense that “reality is whatever the social consensus says it is”—and from the religious nonsense that “reality is whatever the divine consciousness wills it to be.” Reality, Objectivism acknowledges, exists independently of any consensus or consciousness. The function of the mind is not to create reality, but to comprehend it.
And the mind is an attribute of the individual.
Applied to the aim at hand, this particular absolute means that if you want to understand Objectivism, you must activate your mind and consider the philosophy as it actually is—not as those who fear the philosophy falsely portray it to be.
If you approach Objectivism with a commitment to seeing for yourself what it actually says and means, then whatever your assessment—whether positive, negative, or mixed—it will be your assessment. And that, of course, is what matters . . ."

Yep, agree.

Exposing some of the Prager community to this discussion has value. There are likely others for whom religion is losing hold that would happily latch on to logically-grounded basis for their previous "beliefs".

I just listened to this chat in its entirety. Dennis doesn't believe that there are enough people who can reason their way into a rational morality. The same conclusion is shared by religious leaders throughout history. It is why they always result to coercion.

Suspect there are many people (like me) who watch PragerU due to majority alignment, or those who are only semi-religious. Having Ayn's ideas presented can offer some of these people alternative reasons to take similar positions, rather than clinging to religious basis.

A key problem is people abandoning religion due to its obvious flaws falling prey to altruism, rather than a more well-founded philosophy. Letting semi religious people see that their values need not be variously dictated; that they can be derived naturally, is an excellent approach.

ARI/Objectivism should not use a religious site to advertise. However, Prager doing that on his own does not necessarily hurt Obj.

That's my point. They are important elements of the story which the movie completely misses. If they weren't going to show the suicide--and the conversation with Jim Taggart which triggers it--they should have cut the whole Cheryl Brooks storyline out to make room for something else.

The fate of Cheryl Brookes, and Eddie, are important elements of the story. Bad things happen to good people. It is not justice, it was not their fault, but nature does not play by our rules. Under a bad system even good people suffer.

Enjoy!

I enjoy hearing what Dennis has to say. You will find that he values "clarity" very very highly (as do I). To get a better insight into his thinking take a look at this Fire Side Chat episode:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/16fe...

Like that, so stealing it!

As I've told my kids as they were growing up: "Freedom without responsibility is freedom corrupted and soon lost."

Very good point there.

That is an interested thought. Doubt it began that way, but the self licking ice cream cone called “government” has to maintain itself. The three letter agencies have to live on, year after year, with ever incrementally increasing budgets.

I believe "fighting" the drug war was more for the alphabet agencies to fund their operation beyond what is authorized by their "Black Budgets". Also since when has any government solution to end something been successful

The key is that freedom can only be had with responsibility for ones own actions. Any other approach is slavery.

This is tangible and understandable, except to some idiots here that jumped all over me for “freedom = responsibility”. Maybe if I did the math for them: Freedom is only possible if people are responsible for the consequences of their own free choices. Thus, freedom must be accompanied by an equal measure of responsibility. Freedom / Responsibility = 1. Rearranging terms, freedom = responsibility.

This may precipitate thought, but it is a powerful thought experiment. Of course, since Ayn didn’t say it, it can’t penetrate some people’s heads.

Quite true. "Don't worry; you are not responsible for your own actions" is one of the two mantras of Liberalism. We don't have a chance as long as that, and "Don't worry; the Government will take care of you" are taught in our schools.

Those are one group. The misguided, lost and middle are others. The left has figured out how to appeal to these people with altruism and natural reactions, just like the Harri Krishnas. They can similarly be swayed with logic.

True. I wonder if china would really want the pieces that are left over. Its going to be a real mess.. Maybe it will be OUR government that will give up and join forces WITH china under their leadership

What she didn’t foresee was China waiting to gather the pieces.

Changing a lertist's mind is indeed a challenging and notably worthless task, in my opinion. Given their minds operate on emotion only, reason utterly fails to have an effect

I have given up on the USA. Too many leftists and mob rule. AR was right if she predicted that the only way this will change is through an economic crash.