I think I understand the basic idea, but do not know where Ayn pointed this particular thing out. The fissure being socialism and excess government, begun with Taft's 16th?

I like to listen to him, but he is still trying to found a free country on a foundation with a fissure in it. That is the problem with "conservatives", as Ayn Rand repeatedly pointed out.

Changing how the word was obviously meant in the first posting doesn't work. But, I will accept your word.

The last thing I will say on this matter is that we do no kindness to OUR side (and, I do believe Objectivists and Conservatives CAN BE on the same side) by ACTING like the arrogant left.

Have a lovely rest of your day!

Very well said!

Is she religious or a nut? Just being religious does not equal religious nut in the intent of my original statement.

In any case, I am a non-believer and support anyone else’s right to their belief. However, when those beliefs are used to limit the freedoms of others (illegal gay partnerships, abortion or buying liquor on Sunday), we have a problem. Those guys are nuts. Not sure where Dennis Pragers intentions end.

Well said LR.

I view the Amazon socialism initiative as a view that they are the elite and will always have plenty and a huge voice. This is not altruism. It is elitism and totalitarianism.

No one believes everything has been settled by science. However, it is quite clear that nothing has ever been settled by religion.

“Nuts” was not intended to be that negative. It was a colloquialism. I readily accept that I am a nut in many ways. I waste time on fast cars, fast computers, weird guns, soccer three times a week, et al. Most are wasteful, maybe not soccer.

I meant I am not an overly religious person, which is true, since I am an atheist or agnostic.

Focusing on belief without facts and evidence is almost the definition of nuts. It wasn’t intended to be that negative. I’m clearly nuts in other ways. But if we want to belabor the point, fine. Let’s go.
Courage, certainly has nothing to do with believing in an afterlife. Quite the opposite. However, using that argument and manipulating people to fight for the benefit of those in leadership certainly happens.

That's fine. You are quite free to think everything has been settled by science. If you don't think that's true yet then you obviously have FAITH that everything will EVENTUALLY be settled by science. I can't say I disagree with that.

Others, if I have interpreted what they say correctly, believe that there are some things that can only be answered by having faith in themselves or something bigger than themselves. My main point was that to call them "nuts" was unnecessary and likely, insulting to many people reading here.

I consider beliefs by two methods: 'beliefs in, and 'beliefs that'. The first is belief without outside consideration and thus by faith. The second is belief which one considers from outside the belief as to whether it is correct and thus it might be in a scientific or logically conscious way.

It is other men who secure our rights. It is done by selfish actions to preserve those rights. The Declaration of Independence said nothing about some higher power to secure rights. It made a general statement that rights were natural and unalienable, meaning that one cannot give them up as would be a possibility if they were inalienable. Knowledge was a bit shoddy in those days compared to today's knowledge which in the future will have been limited also.
If you want to have something bigger than man to lean on, just consider the Universe with all the laws and things that exist. Learn to be rationally selfish and then you will not need some "God of the Gaps" to explain that which is a mystery at present. Rights is no mystery. It is a necessity for life of a selfish being and is secured by opposing force with force and in a good society by government applying that force.

I wish people would stop using the term "religious nut". I (a non-believer) have been married to the same Christian lady for over 40 years and it's really getting insulting.

I have never met an altruist whose ultimate goal was not submission ensured by the use of violence to their ideals which always leads to totalitarianism.

Another Prager Video that deserves an Academy Award. Between Prager University and Hillsdale College, I can't think of many others that deserve public promotion, and donations to keep going strong. I am also impressed with the College of the Ozarks, requiring all students to actually work their way through their education. I'm sure there are others worthy of our exposure and attention. Perhaps another topic for someone?

One thing about money is that it seems to translate into power. Then that money translates into whatever those in power deem important. Even though Amazon is a capitalist company, those in power there seem to be pushing for socialism. It proves to me that the elite seem to be even more blind than a common voting citizen. Every time we 'donate' to Amazon, it seems to more want to control our destiny. That is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Great story - and so accurate of socialist/communist nations. There was always a thriving black market in the USSR. Even the elites used it for certain things like jeans.

Care to be more specific?

I have no respect for stupidity.

You are quite welcome to focus on whatever you want. And, so are others. To call them a "nut" because they focus FOR THEMSELVES on something you BELIEVE is "crazy" is rude to ANYONE who may have a different view reading your words. You may not have intended that. However, it's quite unnecessary for normal discourse and says more about YOU than them.

There are many levels of belief and I, for one, am open to listening to all kinds of belief systems. The fact that people have performed extraordinary things based solely on their own courage and FAITH in something gives me pause in disparaging them and their beliefs.

I avoid “beliefs” and focus on facts and evidence. If someone else has beliefs, that is fine, just do not base an argument or legislation on them.

If there is some for a higher being, great. Let’s objectively evaluate it. If someone asserted they were God’s son today, they’d get locked up or shunned (nuts). The only thing that keeps the belief from being dismissed is social inertia and fear of the unknown.

The ones that are not motivated by altruism are motivated by power, which inevitably leads to totalitarianism.

It would be nice if people stop referring to others who have a belief system in something bigger than Man as a "nut". You can disagree. However, the belief in a "higher being" or something bigger than Man has a place in history and shouldn't be license to disparage fellow human beings. Our Declaration of Independence would just be a piece of paper signifying nothing without reference to something higher than other men securing our rights.

I know the above sentiment is far from Randian. However, respect for others is not.

I do like Dennis Prager's approach to discussions in which he often states he prefers clarity to submission or agreement. If you disagree with his view and point out why he is not offended that you disagree and would rather understand how an individual feels than forcefully make them submit.
I do not agree with religion mainly because it is hypocritical with their claimed moral visions. Read the dogma and it is difficult not to understand how while preaching love and tolerance the 'scriptures' also allow for the destruction of anyone who does not agree or at the least the plundering of the infidels or any who disagree with their institution. That stated Dennis' elucidation of the goals of the left and statists is clear and makes it easy to understand why they are dangerous.

I have to go look into that. The mainstream online media (FB, YouTube, Twitter, etc) hate PragerU.

Love that!