Aaaaaah, the whole bunch of you are Trolls, some young, in the middle and Old Fart Trolls. It's fine rehashing Ayn Rand's Philosophy here in the digital Gulch. Unfortunately, some or many of us are caught in a piece of geography that is not conducive for productive employment or don't have enough money to start a business.
I still have my mind, a mind of that of a young college student who became enamard with a young and vivacious female History Prof. whom I took every course she offered. Including one on Revlutions in History(some political and most others in armed insurrection. Basically turning me into a Revolutionary in mind, but not so much in physical activity. So, I currently read material about the Cival War, Secession of States and survival books. I'm impatient for the economy to crumble as in Atlas Shrugged. Objectivism, is no where to be found in this world except in peoples thinking. I'm not a Doomsday person, or one to hide in a cave. If there comes a time that Insane Obama attempts to nullify the 2nd Amendment and other parts of the Constitution I will take political and physical action. I will go to the state capital and have my voice heard for Secession from the Union. If that doesn't work then I will take physical action. Like finding a Militia to join or create one.

That was the writing of a guy named Kelly whose 1st name I can't remember. I believe he also did LA Law and still writes other shows. He's a flaming liberal, but a very good and witty writer. Sometimes it is good to mentally delete part of the content in order to enjoy the art. Like two consummate actors squeezing the juice out of a meaty script.

I am touchy on it, too, Herb, in the other way ;^)
Sometimes I turn off programming when some PC rubbish appears. (Some friends hate my political commentary interruptions.) I think this attitude started after watching Boston Legal for several years during the Bush years. The writers were constant in their sniping and criticism of the war and 'rendition', etc. I was really looking forward to seeing what they would do when Obama was elected and betrayed the left. The show was cancelled in spite of decent ratings.

OK. You're right. I'm touchy on this subject. I like seeing the good guys win. I don't often take other things into account, and sometimes forget that scripts are usually written by people who wouldn't know freedom from a canoe paddle.

By the way, I hate it when you're right. Waaay too often. (LNOL) [laugh not out loud]

The "put-down" is on the tv propaganda lionizing actions that violate rights.

What in the name of Mel Brooks is this Gulch put down of cops? Whenever I ask, I get illustrations of isolated instances. I know cops. I know a Lot of cops. To a man and woman, the ones I know are the good guys. However, I admit that if they are employed by the bad guys the choice to follow orders or not to is a difficult one. If you have a wife and three kids and a 3/4 finished pension -- what would you do? It's easy to say you'd do the right thing even if it meant losing your job, not so easy if you're the one on the spot.

I have my own philosophy to make my own decisions. Many core values will determine what I do regardless of what others do. However, there are some aspects of life where others' life (or death) choices will affect my decisionmaking. Namely, if society chooses to punish hard work, intelligence, and production, then it is perfectly rational to shrug. Moreover, if moochers are rewarded while producers are punished, that is an irrational society. By that definition, I see no rational societies left. Politics and social relations may be secondary to one's personal choices, but when a society is so fundamentally screwed up, then the rational decision is to move elsewhere. When all societies are fundamentally screwed up, then it is time for the Second Dark Ages.

The reason why the Gulch has become boring is because it has become an echo chamber for those who consider themselves strict Objectivists. With few exceptions, those disagreeing with strict Objectivists have been shouted down and now have ... shrugged.

I do not claim to be an Objectivist, and while I share many views with Objectivists, I have not and never will claim to be an Objectivist for the following reason.

The common retort for Objectivists is that non-Objectivists are pragmatic. Well, if Objectivism is a philosophy for life on earth, that is a definition of a pragmatic philosophy, yet Objectivism is not pragmatic, as you and others insist.

I disagree with your premise (and AR's) that rationality is necessary for life. While it is necessary for life by an Objectivist, I know too many irrational people who live (albeit poorly) for that premise to be axiomatic. The government-dictated and enforced altruism in every country that I can think of makes the use of man's rational faculty unnecessary for moochers. All one needs to demonstrate the obviousness of this is to look at the huge number of people supporting Comrade Bernie Sanders.

While you correctly pointed out one of the problems with altruism, the more important problem with altruism is that those who willingly choose not to produce do not die of starvation. That is part of my definition of a rational society. Instead such moochers outreproduce responsible producers when it comes to the gene pool. The opposite of this would be required in what I would consider a rational society.

And since you evaded my prior challenge to name a current nation that is rational, I ask you to once again.

Only watched the first 3 eps. Too many rights unabashedly violated by the "hero." Statist copaganda masquerading as entertainment.

Ooooh, I'd never fit through that trash can. A isA

Your pragmatist mixed premises are not consistent with Objectivism at all. Believe what you want, but please stop claiming it is related to Objectivism in any way and stop misrepresenting a philosophy you do not know.

Objectivism is not accepted in a wider audience because most don't know what it is to be able to accept it or not. You are one of them.

You still do not grasp that Objectivism is not politics and not social relations. An individual requires a philosophy to make his own decisions in his own life regardless of what others do. It is not about moochers versus obsession over running off to a desert island. The ethics of social relations is secondary to the necessity of personal choices. One of the destructive aspects of altruism is that it reverses that, demanding not only sacrifice to others as the primary, but leaving the individual with no guidance at all in his own life.

The distinguishing characteristic of man is his rational faculty, the use of which is required to live. It is exercised to some degree or he doesn't. Rationality is the fundamental virtue of the Objectivist ethics. It is accepted by choice or not. It is not automatic. And it does not mean choosing rationality doesn't matter unless everyone does. It does not mean that rationality is for living in "utopia" and Ayn Rand never argued that it does. That is bizarre. You are very confused about Objectivism.

You are correct in saying that Objectivism requires ethical egoism. You are correct in saying that Objectivism requires "rationality, without which no society can work". If you said "without which no society can work productively to its citizens", then I would have no argument. However, there are plenty of non-Objectivist societies where dictators, kings, oligarchies, etc. rule that are unproductive for their citizens. An Objectivist in such a society should be and will always be frustrated by his/her surroundings in such an irrational "society". Very few societies throughout time have been rational. Those that have been rational have prospered. I will argue that there are no longer any rational societies.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism says that human life requires rationality. This is a point that I disagree with in the case of the ever-growing number of moochers, many of whom are capable of choosing to become producers but find it easier to be a moocher. Objectivism requires an entire life of choosing to be what Objectivism defines as moral. (This is not a slam against what Objectivism defines as moral, but rather a contrast to what Judeo-Christian history has defined as moral). This is a series of hard choices that few people make. Are moochers being rational when they think that they will be "taken care of" after making their daily choices to be moochers? Such moochers are definitely alive. Otherwise, you and I wouldn't be expected to be their keeper.

You correctly quoted Ayn Rand in saying that Objectivism is a philosophy for living on earth. The only country and time in which an Objectivist could have lived with minimal contradictions in a larger non-Objectivist society that was rational is pre-21st century America, most notably the late 1800s. There is no nation that an Objectivist can live in this era that can be defined as "rational". I seriously challenge you to name a nation right now that you can define as rational. Yet there are around 7 billion people in this world, more than ever before. According to Objectivism, human life requires rationality. As I have just illustrated, there is no longer a rational country on Earth, even though all of us in this forum would prefer that it did. We would flock to such a place, The fact that we cannot decide amongst ourselves on a place to shrug is further evidence that there is no longer a rational country on Earth.

You may choose to disagree with me, but after my last paragraph, it should be clear that Objectivism is a philosophy for living in Utopia, not for living on Earth.

I suggest you consider why Objectivism has not been accepted by a wider audience. It surely has had enough time and enough intelligent adherents telling its message to achieve a wider acceptance than it has.

I have come to my own philosophical conclusions based on my own empirically derived observations. Objectivism is consistent with many but inconsistent with some of those observations.

That is not what utopianism is and not what Ayn Rand's philosophy requires.

Nope, it came from one of the PBS cooking shows.

Human life requires rationality. Recognizing that is not a "fatal flaw". That statism is a political implementation of irrationalism is not a flaw of Objectivism.

The premises you claimed Objectivism are predicated on are both false and not what Objectivism are based on. Ayn Rand explicitly rejected both of them.

Your statements about mathematical "exponents" are arbitrary, rationalistic nonsense that have nothing to do with Objectivism. It is more floating abstractions. It is no better than the previous metaphors about "differential equations" with nothing to measure and no equations to relate them.

It was apparent when you previously claimed you were over 90% "there" to being an Objectivist that you didn't know what it is. You still don't.

Personally, I prefer NCIS.

Utopian thinking is that which envisions a world where success is dependent on all who participate believing in the same ideology. In that respect, Objectivism is no less Utopian than any other competing ideology.

What is this strange thing you call "boredom"?

Likewise

Look at the latest 'new' posts rather than 'hot'. If you were discussing here everyday it would probably mean neglecting something else important anyway.

Have you gone back and read all the original Ayn Rand essays and lectures? Their characteristic depth and significance in contrast to stock political commentary (even when correct) makes them timeless. She once described her "purpose in writing articles [as] to discuss the application of Objectivism to modern events—i.e., to explain today's trends by identifying their philosophical roots and meaning, and to present the Objectivist alternative. In this respect, reality has proved too cooperative: so many trends are going the way I predicted they would (only more crudely and viciously so) ... My criterion in selecting the subjects I discussed was: the subject's philosophical importance, which had to be demonstrable, but not too obvious." -- "A Last Survey", The Ayn Rand Letter, Nov. 1975.

It is far more than the rehashes you see today.