OK, I just read the referenced article and all of the posted comments and replies and I can only say it's at least disappointing that so many continue to misunderstand Objectivism, if not purposely misstate it's principles and life applications. It is rewarding to see such an effort made by so many, which directly implies that the gaining interest in Objectivism is making an impact on the world around us. The democrat socialist progressives, the neo-cons, theists, and statists of all stripes are finally beginning to admit outside of their inner circles that the push-back against not only their stated policies, but also their world views of equality in outcomes for the common man regardless of individual differences and efforts, against all reason are gaining serious momentum.

It's as well interesting to me that the poster chose to place his post and comment in politics rather than in philosophy, where it more appropriately belongs. Many will ask 'Why is that interesting', and my response lies in AR's commentary on the necessity of addressing the intellectual education in philosophy of the American citizen in order to alter political outcomes, rather than addressing their political beliefs. Beliefs, whether political, theism, or any other description are equally tepid when examined under the light of objective reality. The revolution and founding of this country was based on the philosophy of individual rights, not political beliefs and arguments.

It can and should be argued and recognized that the dangers faced by this nation today are the direct results of the loss of intellectual support of individual rights and freedom and why it's essential to,understand the philosophical underpinnings, as well as the manipulation of political beliefs. Just liking the highlights and catch phrases of Objectivism that happen to align with some part of one's current political belief system without taking the time and effort to understand why, and why some aspects don't align with one's belief system will not generate significant individual liberty. Political beliefs will always be subject to manipulation and exaggerations, where the principles of Objectivism will hold firm against any attempt to manipulate or subject one's self to the short lived populism and entertainment value of political belief.

Yeah, read on. I think you'll see we are all in agreement.

NEVER "set aside reason."
Liking beer and wine is perfectly reasonable, or at least not unreasonable (I don't like them but know it is an opinion) and as long as you don't harm yourself or others, and as long as you don't damage your brain and thinking process, there is no, uh, reason not to drink it. IF you like it.
But NEVER "set aside reason." Please.
(And now I see AMeador1 has said something similar.)

I look at it a little like risks and opportunities on development programs. Relative value (cost) * likelihood = factored value (cost). Factored cost is compared to the value. A quantitative example of a qualitative analysis might be: [cost = my life] * [likelihood = 10 %] = [factored value = 10% of a valuable life] compared against a 100% chance of another's life lost.

How's that for a Vulcan take from someone who frets about the rationality of drinking beer?

My Mom said it best. "People are entitled to their opinions. When you have someone who is "so very wrong" don't try to argue with them. They cannot be swayed far enough for you to agree with them. Just say "Bless Your Heart" and keep walking." We know that trouble is coming. Be prepared & keep your powder dry.

In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny and Francisco differed
with each other through most of the novel, but it
was an honest difference of opinion about what the
results would be of certain actions. When Dagny
realized her mistake, she joined Francisco, Galt,
and the other strikers.
Rearden and Francisco were at odds, tempor-
arily; both were good; eventually Rearden joined
Francisco and the strike.

1 and#2 are "arguing in a circle"; #3 is just an
ad hominem personal attack.

I think you misread my comments. I pointed out that reason was the ideal, but that we would only be able to approach such an ideal where we are able to identify our emotional biases. Thus of the many fallacious points made in the article there was one which had some ring of truth - discarding the fairly obvious emotional biases of the author himself.

You can't force other people to use reason, but
that does not mean they are right;

4 Not everyone makes use of the luck he gets;
under the laissez-faire system she advocated,
an untalented person, or one who did not make
proper use of his inheritance, would lose his money;

I totally agree. I say the Communists from Russia, Sal Alinsky, and the like have accomplished their goals. They have infiltrated the education system K-College, media, politics, etc...

Limit real education and critical thinking skills, make the idea of moral judgment or the idea of right and wrong a moral relativism based on Kantian philosophy where anything goes, etc... and society will go in whatever direction the mystics direct them to.

The idea that the majority of the country is "feelings" based is clear. It is opening the doors to uneducated, non-thinking people to think the idea of socialism is a good thing - that big government is the answer - that free is cool. So like early stages of Atlas Shrugged.

Rand needed to come along in the late 1800's so Progressivism could have been combated early on before the is had a foothold.

If we have any hope, it is in getting control back of the same areas they took over - education, media, Hollywood, politics, etc... We have to educate and teach our young to be Objectivist in their approach to life. Right now all they're hearing is twisted versions of history, reality, socialism/communism, relativism, etc... Rational, critical thinking is a thing of the past.

True. And? ...

Reason has limitations. Therefore we should not attempt to use it where it serves?

Thomas Sowell deals with this in 30 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyJRu...

I think we agree. A human life is valuable - depending on who and what they are to you, you may value them enough to kill yourself to save them. Rand even agreed with this on the basis that you may not value your life without that person and are therefore willing to give your life for them. But, would you place a value on a stranger above your own life? I would not. That doesn't mean I wouldn't try to save them, the particulars of the circumstance and the level of danger I would be willing to put myself in would be a factor in deciding what I would be willing to do verses not saving them. If I were going to have to jump in a lake and damage items in my pockets to save someone from a submerging car - I'd be fine with that. If I had to let someone shoot me to save a stranger - much harder decision - I probably would not do it.

Drinking within reason is hard. How do you clearly decide? There are pros and cons for reasonable drinking for the average person. You might gain some weight, maybe be at higher risk for kidney stones, possible liver damage - but all these are minimized or eliminated with limited use. But, there are also advantages - like relaxing, anti-oxidants, possible effects on your arteries/heart/etc... Who knows. Then there are always studies telling us it's good and others telling us it's evil. It becomes a personal decision based on your personal experience with it.

But, drinking to the point of putting aside rational reason is inherently dangerous to yourself and others around you. Drinking too much can effect finances, family, etc... Again - all have to be weighed and valued - rationally by the individual making the choice.

So according to the writer an Objectivist is free of conflict of any kind. And the writer seems to know intimate details of Ayn Rand to make such authoritative statements. As Socrates said: Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people. So to conclude: the writer is of weak mind.

Seems like I'd be in better shape, faster for soccer and live longer if I went to a single glass of wine and stopped beer. Perhaps the pleasure outweighs the negatives. I still think the pleasure and weights are a limitation of my human form, and a more reasoned person would have more will power to resist the short term pleasure for more long term pleasure/benefit.

It is an interesting point. I think we agree in the outcome and are arguing a fine point of reasoning...which is of some value. I have argued in your camp before regarding putting one's self in danger to save another. I claim I get pleasure from it, and consider this a reason. If this satisfies the same argument as beer drinking, then we agree.

If only everyone in the United States could be presented that very scenario, we might have a chance!

Well done!

I'm never ok with setting aside reason - why would you be? You even show reason in your beer example. If you like it and drink it within reason, then why does this show you are putting reason aside. In reasonable quantities - there is nothing wrong with beer. If you like it and place a particular value on the pleasure you get from it, and believe it outweighs the minor potential negatives there may be from drinking it, then you are doing what Rand says - valuing things and deciding what to do based on your valuation system. Higher values over lower values.

If you decide to drink excessively so that you can no longer think rationally - then I would say that is too far - especially if driving, watching the kids, working on heavy equipment, etc... I have never been drunk. I have been very wary of alcohol as I do not want to drink it to the point that my reasoning skills are not at a higher level than my emotional responses. I have felt this way long before reading Rand.

Here's an example of reason vs feelings. You may have read that recently the court in Italy declared that a poor person stealing a small amount of food is quite alright and does not constitute a crime. After all, the person was hungry. Talking about this to my somewhat socialist-inclined sister, who is an artist and believes that others needs to support her, she immediately responded that, sure, if the person is hungry, he needs some minimum support from the government. So I asked her to picture a homeless person, who happens to be in front of her house and who happens to be hungry, walking into her house and in a friendly, polite, non-threatening way helping himself to her refrigerator. At that point, subjective feelings left her and objective reasoning took over...

I am so tired of the pundits and intellectuals. I just dont listen to them. Its such a waste of time. BUT, that said, they have to be opposed or they win.

Too late for that! Did that routine twice.

The life I lived kinda blends in with that saying. I was a college student who was against Vietnam War and resented the draft that did indeed tag me.
Back then you would not believe how many Marines thought, as did I, that socialism was a good idea and that ":the man" sucked.
Later my brain grew up in time to vote for Ronald Reagan twice.

You illustrate my point to perfection.