I think one symptom of what is going on, is the increased use of "they" in the singular (supposedly to avoid sexism). Not that it is as important as many of the political issues now around, but it can have a tendency to increase a collectivistic mindset. (see Anthem. ) __-_

Yes

Its not in the actual constitution. May have been what Madison thought.

You may be right about that. I noticed that blacks changed during the Obama regime. He made them feel entitled. The left grabbed on to that and now if you walk on the wrong side of the street, you are labeled racist. My personal reaction to this is that I want NO intereaction with black people at all. I stay away from them, dont talk to them, and would rather not deal with their entitlement. I am disgusted by all the pandering to is going on in advertising. Ads now favor black people, government positions are given to black people regardless of qualifications. This entitlement issue has brought blacks back to the stone age in my opinion. I dont even want to deal with entitled black customer service people

Not a very popular view, but I think government should be dependent on the largess of the people, and not be able to print money to circumvent that.

You are not worthy of that information.

at what point did you discover Ayn Rand? It is amazing how much many of us share routes to whre we are. I saw my first UFO when I was 8, heading for Gallup, NM. It follow our car for a while, same speed, triangle, 3 lights, apx. 1955, then soundlessly sped out of sight rapidly.I graduated just after you, my dad said I should to to school for computers, which was new. I went to work at a Univ. for 3 yeas. wanted small town life, so went to work at CPA firm, where I entered another field of study, accounting, compelted that and did that several years. Raised our child, took a vet. asst. course during that time. Decided at 30 to get a degree in English, fell in love with philosophy, had too majore, took science in place of electrives and ended up with ebery biology course at teh college and Earch science as a side. Baiscally, I had three majors, which was tricky with the labs involved in both. Went to work as a reporter for a newspaper, had worked in Congressional office, gratifying as we did a lot of research to help people and I helped do research on bills, but the unreality of it all was not for me. If I wee 35, I would next study architecture, being a huge fame of FLW. I got connected to Tom DeWeese of American Poicy center, and he got me reading UN Agenda 21, studying all the consequences which stripped liberty and changed education for the worse.In essence everything is "unsustainable" but solutions and not explored, it is all one world power.
.

Language is a sentient.

Language is a sentence.

I sat on the Strategic Plan Team for our school system, where the Delphi Technique was drug and and used to try to silence any who wanted academics, instead of indoctrination, luckily we knew the technique and how to function within it.One meeting had a speaker, highly paid, who came in and told the teachers not to blame themselves for the state D rating, as the district had a lot of poor kids, and por kids can't learn. I waited for any teacher to object, none did. So, I told him that was the dumbest thing I ever heard. I was also a volunteer tutor and worked with those kids, thomas Sowell was such a kid, and looke what a brilliant writer, economist he became. Your are right about affirmative action, it is a free pass, and if you are Randian, you know that it is not an earned result. My own brother, had the grades and the IQ, but was dnied entrance to Geo. Wash. Univ. as a person of color with lower credentials got the spot. Science and math are now considered "racist" in public schools. When a mgr. at MdD asked a did at the reister what is 7 plus 5, the 16 year old could not answer. I have seen others who could not count the mone listed on the register as change back to the customer! Britain told Clinton not to implement outcome based ed.as it caused a brain drain in Britain. He did so anyway, with Columbine being one of the first fully compliant! First attempts at teh Gov. Shool in Ark. resulted in suicide atemps. As to homeless, drugs, mental illness, unrealistic expectation of life, s, in other words not in line with "Atlas Shrugged.".

"You can say evolution is not proven, but then we have no common ground for discourse. ... However, I have better things to do with my time than argue evolution."

The topics here in the Gulch range far and wide and you are certainly free to engage where you will.

Scientists never rest upon their laurels - however well-grounded we may think we are. The moment we stop challenging and/or re-confirming our premises is when we become more interested in outcomes than in truth. To reference a certain health official, it is when in our egos we start asserting that "we ARE science" or that the "science is settled." We should be very wary of ever falling into such a dangerous trap, for in so doing we are actually asserting our omnitience - a fatal conceit if ever one existed.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." - Men in Black

"Now you think I have engaged in ad hominem attacks?"

I alleged nothing of the sort. As a courtesy, I laid out the conventions by which we here in the Gulch conduct our conversations and recognize value. We've had enough history from some who called themselves members yet seemed to exist only for the confrontation and never for the exploration. They were tiresome bores with little to positively contribute. As you are a recent addition, I thought it an assistance to lay out the ground rules. I made no effort to offend and if I did so even unintentionally I ask your pardon.

"I don't know if you've understood that I am not sure I want to even post on Galt's Gulch."

From what little I have read, my opinion is that you have much to offer. But you will have to make that decision for yourself.

"Arrogance only attaches when a person has not qualifying attributes to sustain his belief in himself. Perhaps you should read more Rand."

Methinks you might be confusing arrogance - the belief that one is superior to another as a matter of existence - with self-justification. I do not belittle achievement, but I absolutely do hold that "all men are created equal" and deserve - until they demonstrate otherwise - that they should be treated with a basic modicum of respect. Belittling or condescending behavior assumes (wrongly) an aspect of inequality and is born of an arrogant disposition. I like this advice from Albert Einstein: "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

As to my reading proclivities, I'm "booked" for all this year with my Christmas gifts. ;) I especially love hard-core science fiction and epic fantasy but dabble in world history, especially the history of War. One who thinks Rand is the only philosopher worth reading would do well to add in some Tolkien, Vonnegut, Jr., Asimov, Heinlein, Sun Tzu, and many, many more.

"By the way, I am a God-believer, as well as a scientist."

Outstanding! We take all kinds here (atheists, agnostics, Christians, etc.) but especially true scientists - those willing to contribute to the search for Truth in all its myriad forms and expressions. The board does maintain a strict no-proselyting policy, however.

Use language in a sentence.

Without language there is no way to express time-past-future tense.
Hominids v Homo Sapiens? Is this the chicken/egg paradox?
Time exists without language. I cannot express time to another without language, even being it is a signing symbolism, gestures. Language is the currency, value exchange.

Regarding schooling: Entropy. Teachers schooled in schooling, over multiple generations, with no outside commerce, first-hand experience, have fewer ways to express how a percept/concept may be utilized for the schooled, as to their respective "future". I use a model of "Foundational Five". Forage, Fishery, Forestry, Farming, Foundries. I have first hand experience in all five, personal and vocational. It is very easy for me to convey anecdotal exchange as to trade in physical context, as without these commerce ceases.

Let's try a test in knowledge. In your own words, literally, express time, in a simple construct.

Blarman, evolution is a fact. You can say evolution is not proven, but then we have no common ground for discourse. Do you think by that remark I am trying to coerce you into thinking as I think? I don't care if you think God made man in his image, or creationism, you can think what you want. However, I have better things to do with my time than argue evolution.

Ad hominem? Now you think I have engaged in ad hominem attacks? Perhaps you are just insecure.

Arrogance only attaches when a person has not qualifying attributes to sustain his belief in himself. Perhaps you should read more Rand.

I don't know if you've understood that I am not sure I want to even post on Galt's Gulch.

Have you read my thread: "How do delete my account", that I have done this for a friend only, and it's use may have already run its course.

By the way, I am a God-believer, as well as a scientist.

The concept of taxation is behind the very formation of America. The founders never wanted a "capitation tax", they felt taxes on commerce was all the central government should tax, such as export and import, and between state lines.

The federal income tax came about through the 16th amendment and became law in 1913.

The consequence of this amendment sucked the wealth right out of the states, and into the pockets of the central government, thus making states subservient and dependent on funds from the central government. The federal government now holds the strings. In order to have money to get whatever the states needed to get done, they have to do what the federal government wants.

Madison had thought the power of the states would encroach upon the power of the central government; the 16th amendment changed that. Now power is concentrated in the central government, and the states as a countervailing power have lost influence.

I believe Madison had quite a bit to say about private property, and he may have felt that since the Constitution guaranteed the rights of individuals, then it respected the right of their property.

Madison wrote:

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."

He goes on to explain what an unjust government will do. You need to read it; it shows just how shredded our Constitution has become. Here's the link, to this one, anyway:

https://justvoteno.blog/2017/10/17/private-property-as-viewed-by-james-madison/

"If you cannot see Natural Selection as the necessary instigation of evolution, then we have no common grounds for discourse. Do we."

Up to you. Here's a problem to consider.

In order to create a new organism, that new organism must contain at least one new protein. A small protein consists of ~140 base pairs in a precise sequence - not a single base can be substituted or replaced or the resulting molecule when built will not fold/function correctly. With four possible values for each position in the chain, you get a random probability of generating any such protein of 4^140th. That's a number with 82 zeroes behind it. Scientists have estimated that the total number of organisms (including bacteria) to have ever existed on the planet to be ~10^30th power. Assuming one iteration per organism, that means that all of the organisms ever generated on the planet during 4 billion years haven't even scratched the surface of possibilities into even a single new protein - let alone a new organism. Precisely, the probability of generating even a single new protein in all that 4 billion years is ~1 in 10^50th. Estimates of the number of stars places even that number at 10^24th, meaning that even if you extend this same evolutionary chance to every star in the universe you still come up >10^25th short of producing even a single, new protein. Now multiply this times the ~6.5 million species on earth and you begin to see the quandary of such literally astronomical numbers and their probability.

This is only the first of such challenges to the theory of evolutionary origin.

You're welcome to believe what you want for whatever reasons you choose. You are welcome to be as adversarial or as polite as you choose. As you are new to the Gulch, I'd strongly advise, however, that you give the rest of us our due credit. This is no common Internet chat room. Everyone here is thoughtful and willing to hear you out, but we have no use for arrogance, condescension, or elitism. We welcome good ideas and the vigorous debate of all such. We do not tolerate ad hominem and have no problems pointing out logical fallacies.

Above all, remember that Rand herself advocated against coercion - especially of thought. If you wish to convince me to your viewpoint, present your thoughts and allow me to come to my own conclusions.

I believe that before LBJ and MLK formed that unholy alliance, black Americans and the black communities were becoming more and more self-sufficient.

The Great Society killed any striving for independence on their part.

Believe it. It is true.

our constitution had a serious flaw- it didnt specifically guarantee private property. That led to taxation many times worse than the english did to the colonists. sure, we have "representation", but what good does it do if you are in the minority.

kind of terrifying actually. makes one NOT want to live in areas populated by people who think like this. AR was right to propose an economic crash to get people to respect reality.

"And I am usually right. Or at least rarely wrong. In fact, it can safely be said that no one knows human nature better than myself."

Everyone is right in their own minds. It takes Reality to show us otherwise.

What do you require as proof?
Mendel and the Voyage of the HMS Beagle, along with the biochemistry involved in the formation and reactions of DNA and RNA were proof enough for me.

If you cannot see Natural Selection as the necessary instigation of evolution, then we have no common grounds for discourse. Do we.

I disagree with you, blarman, but I respect your role as a philosopher.

And I am usually right. Or at least rarely wrong. In fact, it can safely be said that no one knows human nature better than myself.

Well, yes, Jefferson did enumerate all of what he considered the King's malfeasance towards the colonies. Was it 27 of them, in the Declaration of Independence?

But were they justifications for what was an urge on the part of the colonists to determine the way forward by themselves? After all, they were already used to governing themselves, voting was the preferred method of "appointing" officials in the various colonies.

But the Constitution itself is the miracle. Whatever was its real motivation, it could only have been formulated by educated white EnglishMEN, drawing on not only English history (the Magna Carta was a biggie, as was the "Becket incident", but also ancient history of the Greeks and Romans, history of the Holy Roman Empire and its struggles with the formidable Catholic Church, and other events. Reformation, the Thirty Years War and the Peace of Westphalia, and so on.

But Heavens, we have a statue to the two-bit criminal George Floyd, who needs the Constitution?