Yet she expressed being at odds with libertarians, yet we're pretty much classical liberal". The myriad of definitions of such stuff drives me nutso!

Primacy of existence is reinforced each time I stub my toe.

Good video, so I reposted it on no-ruler.net/

First off, as has been true for most of history, titles and names have been perverted by people looking to subvert their power / success. For example, look how "Progressives" claimed the title "Liberals" in the 1920's, which at the time Liberal was the opposite of Progressive. Yet the name stuck, and we now describe leftists as "Liberals."

But just as meanings change maliciously, they also evolve naturally. For example, you discuss Conservatives and Liberal Republicans as if they are the same thing. And that just goes to show how little you understand what is happening. Real Conservatives, at the heart of it, are closer to Objectivists than any other political group or denomination. While there are rarely perfect Conservatives, you only need to look to the schism in the Republican party when the likes of Goldwater or Reagan rise to power. And most importantly how Liberal Republicans go far out of their way to put them down (most of the time successfully, I might add).

When "moral code" is based upon Blind Faith, what remains of Reason?

Txs jim.

Thanks

The epistemological foundations of Austrian Economics are not reason or the philosophy of science This causes them to make a number of errors.

1)Youtube
Hayek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fszzh...

Mises https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkEyY...

2) Articles
Menger http://hallingblog.com/2015/11/16/car...

Mises http://hallingblog.com/2015/09/08/pra...

Hayek http://hallingblog.com/2015/03/04/hay...

This is why I think the country is truly finished. Both parties in power are statist. It appears to me that the addled masses in 'Merika are ready to be subject to a whole lot of force. That's good, because that's what they're going to get.

People really are looking to this current political race, as always, expecting to be saved - expecting to turn the country around. Not going to happen. The oppressive boot will start increasing its downward pressure on their faces more and more as time goes by. At least they seem to like it. So, that's good.

Reason is a volitional activity of one's mind. Since the philosophy of Objectivism is by definition Egoistic and provides the moral argument for 'rational self interest', I would think that it's very obvious that we don't advocate 'using Ayn Rand's reasoning'. But at the same time, we do use and appreciate AR's work, writings, and discoveries as we do the same of Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Darwin, etc.

It's obvious from your comment that you really haven't made the effort to understand the philosophy or the concept of reason.

My younger daughter is taking college freshman economics with a Keynesian (argh!) at the local community college. Students get the opportunity to choose (with instructor approval) an economics book to review by the end of the term. I recommended The Source of Economic Freedom. She still hasn't picked a book yet. Perhaps I have failed?

Edit considered and agreed upon. :)

Here's the reality: Objectivism is at best a fringe philosophy (numbers-wise) and incapable of any political change. So the question is: do you want to change those two dynamics? If you really want to introduce and convert people to Objectivism, your best bet is people with whom you already share concerns and many interests. So you can try to court the progressives with commonalities on abortion and drug legalization, but with whom the philosophical differences on economics and welfare are stark, or you can try to court the conservatives with whom you share a common economic philosophy, respect for universal concepts of law, patriotism, etc., with whom you disagree regarding the existence of deity.

You can either focus on the differences or you can focus on the similarities and build from there.

Perhaps George Washington? This has been a worthwhile post, Zen.

Exactly!

A "belief" is neither truth nor fact. As such, beliefs are chosen. A rational person chooses their beliefs, knowing they are neither truth nor fact, wisely. I use the term "necessary fictions" for my beliefs and, because they are beliefs, I am under no obligation to defend or explain or rationalize them. My favorite necessary fiction is that I look the same as I did 50 years ago!!! and I maintain that belief by never looking in a mirror.

It's the old rock and a hard place.
I'm not sure of her later years, but for a while, Ms. Rand was quite active in politics. In doing so, she had to choose sides, and she fought hard for those whom she supported. Today's choices are not quite as clear-cut as Roosevelt versus Wilke, what with myriad of Republicans vying for the nomination. The sure-to-be Democrat Candidate is Ms. Clinton, guaranteed to be Obama's third term. Leading the Republican pack is a Crypto Conservative businessman, followed by a religious zealot, followed by Marco the giant killer. Every one brags of their Conservative credentials. What to do? To paraphrase, "Of two weasels, pick the lesser." Meaning, the one who'll do the least damage. If you can't wrap your head around that, then drop out. If you do and the greater weasel-evil gets in, then you are partly responsible.

The Right to Travel and explained to me via DK would invalidate national borders, invite unrestricted travel by anyone in and out of the country, and facilitate open us up to a variety of problems for this nation. I consider our national identity the Bill of Rights since everyone depends on it and builds their lives from it. We can see that national identity changing as we speak.

Note in my original posting I said "I have wondered" and that was enough of a catalyst to be shown the door.

Interesting..I'm extolling my distaste for objectivism? Its clear? Seriously?

Yes, perhaps I've worn out my welcome. I certainly have with you.

Very much so. They just claim they can do it better.

I've always enjoyed being a minority of one.

Boskjold22:
Poetry to my ears.
Thanks for this input.

Is that like saying 'I'm an Individual', jim?

I expect that an Objectivist president would dismantle the surveillance state (mainly created by conservatives) including the NSA, TSA, Border Patrol, eliminate the welfare state (supported by conservatives – see GW’s medicare part B), shrink and repurpose the military (mainly supported by conservatives), eliminate civil asset forfeiture (started and supported by conservatives). I expect in his first term an O president would shrink total government expenditures to less than 10% of GDP. The US would have the fastest growing economy in the world and productive, creative people would flow to the US from all over the world.

In the second term of the O president the US would be well on the way for the US to again be the richest country in the world in terms of per capita GDP. The opportunities for all people who wanted to be productive would be overwhelming and unemployment would be almost unknown. The economic success of the US would result in decreased tensions throughout the world.

During his term the O president would be attacked by conservative every step of the way. Then when the overwhelming success of his policies were clear to almost everyone, the conservatives would mount a two prong attack. On the one hand they would want to take credit for all the successes and say they were the result of christian values and on the other hand they would complain about the loss of traditional values. The liberals of course would create a new environmental Armageddon and complain about wealth inequality.

The founding fathers were pretty much O presidents or leaders, including Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison etc. They were not conservatives. Modern conservativism had not been invented and old fashion conservativism was the christian church which had plunged Europe into 1000 years of untold human misery and ignorance. This is exactly what the Founders were fighting against.

AJ it is clear that you are not exploring objectivism anymore. You are not interested in rational, evidence based discussions, you just want to spread your passionate distaste for Objectvism and reason. I think perhaps it is time that you took a vacation from the gulch