Just don't let Pon Farr get you first! :D

I agree that this can be an issue - people are not perfect - even the Vulcans struggled with their emotions ;) (Maybe this was Rodenberry's attempt to attack this fundamental premise of Rand). However, also keep in mind that Rand made the point that the only way for a person to have a good ability to truly live Objectively required being taught to be objective in their life from a very early age. Of course not everyone will have the same experiences - but if they are taught to look at those experiences objectively from the beginning - it also becomes that basis on their emotional responses. If your emotional responses are in line with a clearly practiced and thought out approach to how you think about things, it gets easier to practice. A self feeding cycle per se. But look at Rand herself - she messed up and fell prey to emotions that did not meet objectivist analysis, at least from my perspective. But everyone makes mistakes. Her flaws do not justify a "throwing the baby out with the bath water" line of thinking. Her philosophy is very well thought out and makes sense. Her mistakes in life or her own practical application of it are somewhat irrelevant. Einstein's theory's would still have been just as valuable - whether he was a wonderful person or a full scale wacko. Just my two cents.

Over the years, I have read similar junk. It is usually written by persons who have the bejeezus scared out of them by Objectivism. It points out all of the guilt, fears and evil that they've been covering up and suppressing for their entire lives. They realize that if Objectivism is real, they are nothing more than a twisted ogre percolating in their own slime.

Agree with you there, Blarman.

I am ok with setting aside reason in certain cases, and accepting that we have human limitations. For example, I like beer and wine. There is little really good derived from them, but I like them, and will allow this vice within reasoned limits.

This in until I pass the the Vulcan Kolinahr ritual!

If he is talking about a leftest acting out rand...then it's believable...

Speaking of the left...#7 is perfect for today...feelings, emotions, have "trumped" Facts, reason, logic or what is truly good for the country.

At the same time, I'm reading this and listening to Ted Cruz's concern about the vast divide in the country, the emotionally vicious non factual, lies expounded by the rest prohibits an awakening and a return to the principles. 1/2 the country is not, can not...listen to reason.

Maybe we have fallen over the edge and the idea of a Republic is dead.

What we have witnessed is exactly what happened at the fall of Babylon...The writings on the wall..."Your days are numbered"
Not knowing history prevents one from knowing from where you come and therefore prevents one from knowing to where you are going.

I read through those "10 Reasons". But I don't have time for any of this. "Subjective Reality and My Emotions" are getting in the way: I'm hungry (no breakfast yet) and my coffee cup is empty.

All I had to do is read the first paragraph to know not to read any further.
It would be in the best interest of this forum to delete the totality of the post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All right. Herewith an "objective" critique.

"Reasons" 3 and 9 are argumenta ad hominem.

"Reason" 1 lies at the core of this person's objection. He plumps for a command economy, or at least an economy with "command" elements.

"Reason" 7 ignores the very basis for law. Which is why those having the "thief mentality" never want to argue facts, because they know they'll always lose.

"Reason" 10 is false. Do you know why? Because all too many CEOs are Orren Boyles. You have only to observe their conduct.

"Reason" 6 is a matter of opinion, not objective, verifiable fact.

"Reason" 4 is an excuse for theft. It also ignores Henry Rearden's ringing defense of free enterprise. Remember: "the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with."

The rest of his "reasons" are scarcely worth considering.

That saying is a variant of Winston Churchill's famous line.

While most of these are complete junk, I think there is a point to be made with #7. You show me the perfectly logical Objectivist and you can show me where #7 doesn't apply. I am not arguing that reason isn't the ideal, only that if any of us think we can reach that we're delusional. Our feelings always impact our thought processes: the trick is in recognizing our own personal biases and being willing to honestly admit we have them.

In general, I think that the author epitomizes #7, as this article is clearly an emotional rant - not a reasoned critique. I was turned off not only by its style, but its condescending attitude.

What's the old saying? "If you're not a liberal when in college you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're older you have no brain."

I look at all the Bernie Sanders supporters and this statement just flashes at me like a neon sign on the Strip in Las Vegas.

A case where I'd just as soon not be above average ;^)

"Objectivism has always been for the young". Other than one high schooler, is there any regular contributor in the Gulch under 40? I would guess that the average age of those in this forum is 60.

We are up against a vacuum. it is not a contest. I have been at this for 50 years. We have been very successful, and will continue to be.

Besides, who reads CBS Money? Old people. Objectivism has always been for the young. I recommend time and again that you goto the Ayn Rand Institute essay contests and see the winners from Catholic high schools. We are in our third generation.

You see this tirades in mainstream media like CBS Money, MSNBC, or Huffington Post. No one decries the personal lives of John Maynard Keynes or Ludwig Wittgenstein. No one waves a red flag over Dale Carnegie or Napoleon HIll, both of whom continue to sell well. Here in Austin (for one), the Church of Scientology is accepted as a volunteer agency in disaster relief, along with the Buddhists and Baptists. So, people seem to have gotten past L. Ron Hubbard's personality. And, of course, it would be odd, you know, for MSNBC or CBS Money to carry an opinion piece on why Christianity is a crock.

So, rants like that just continue to advertise the product, really. It is nearly impossible to kill an idea, least of all a good one.

This is a good summary of what we are up against.