I absolutely agree that GW Bush's statement along that line was a fallacy. But the real damage of 911 was self inflicted and the external parts were a side show.

We are all imperfect... Those of us that strive to improve are ahead of the pack. Better to have ideals one cannot meet than to have none to begin with.

Now slavery has been also made obsolete by the advent of robotics and automation.

I agree he was against slavery. BUT, he put his own self interest ahead of the moral principles he espoused. A lot of people are intellectually conflicted I suppose, even then.

That's how it is supposed to work.

Aviation is one. Dagny is flying and from the description is in an aerodynamic stall. To recover, she pulls up. That is the first thing we flight instructors teach students not to do. Which means she did not even consult a pilot. That is an error in the story line. Is this your question, or is it more an error in the metaphysics or psychology of the philosophy

I assumed ;the truth of the quotation when I made my post. Good lesson for me: always check first to see if the quotation exists and is accurate. I figured no Objectivist would say Francisco said something Francisco did not say. I just did a search for "we must take sides" in AS and did not find anything.

How about one particular error you feel she made? I am curious.

I did a search of AS and do not see he made any such statement and I do not remember Francisco making such a statement. Please quote the statement you are referring to and the location in kindle format if possible

The are well set out in Branden's article on this subject, as well as by Michael Shermer. If you don't have copies, let me know and I can send them to you.

Interesting post. When I was subscribing to an online dating service, a woman's profile indicated that Trump supporters need not apply. At the same time, I have seen families argue over Trump versus Hillary and remain in good standing with each other. Argument can augment relationships at least as much as it hinders them.

The goal is not the most converts - it is getting the philosophy correct. You seem to be confused that philosophy is a political movement.

examples?

You conclusion is in error. I am not anti-Rand, I am objective about Rand. When she says things I believe are correct, I say so. When she does not, I also say so. She said many things well, and she said many things that are 100% in error. Fortunately, she did more of the former than the latter or I would not call myself an Objectivist. In "a place to explore Objectivism" errors must also be pointed out, or else you have dogma --- as I see at ARI. There are benefits and dangers in Objectivism, both of which I have witnessed, enjoyed and suffered from.

you are somewhat anti-Rand. this site is supposed to be a place to explore Objectivism, not tear it apart.

of course, you are correct. Politics is the LAST game :)

Touche! In that regard the servitude has become universal. I cannot argue with that!

The government has made private slavery illegal, only to be replaced by government enforced slavery in terms of taxation. Although it IS voluntary, credit is a form of slavery too.

No it hasnt. If you have a job in the USA, you will wind up working for a portion of the year just to pay what the government demands of you. If thats NOT slavery, I would like to know what is !!

I stand corrected. Slavery is indeed alive and well right here in the USA, not to mention in most other places. How about enforced taxation, where we are forced to work for several months of the year for the government and its wealth transfer programs. Its gone, at least temporarily, but the draft was slavery in its worst form- where you are forced to sacrifice your life for some politician's whims.

Greetings EdGoldstein,
I concur. A cold reality.
We are fortunate to live in times where it has for the most part been left in the past.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Most technology replacing slavery today is based on hydrocarbon energy. Invent an excuse to force society to stop using hydrocarbons, and what will be the result? Yes, slavery, camouflaged as socialism "for the greater good.".

It is even more difficult and perhaps unfair to judge people of a different time with our present day mores.
I cannot condone any slavery in his time or ours. That said: One cannot help but see that Jefferson was a product of his times and in his time a plantation or a household did not have the machinery and labor saving devices we have. His competition had slaves. If he was to exist and see his espoused principles and slavery abolished one day, he had to exist/compete on the same field as others until such time that all would be on equal footing. He did not invent slavery. It was a dark cold reality of his times world wide. One that he was in the unfortunate position of suffering against his better nature, What he could do was write words like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." knowing they were in contradiction to the conditions for all, yet an aspiration for all the world to change. I cannot and will not justify his or others of his times shortcomings in this regard. It is what it was. However, we can appreciate the fact that he was instrumental in bringing words of enlightenment that were bound to force the issue and one day achieve the abolition. Without people like him and their words that forced people to face the iniquity of their times, slavery which still exists in some parts of the world, might still be a more prevalent condition. The argument was never moral or right. It simply was and needed to change.

"Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity”1 and a “hideous blot,”2 he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation.3 Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.4 These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm."
https://www.monticello.org/site/plant...

Personal attacks and tirades by participants.

You speak as if slavery was a thing of the past. It is not. Slavery is widely practiced today in the Islamic world and has no doubt returned to this country with the importation of Islam. India still has a functioning, if not totally legal, caste system that is hereditary slavery. For that matter what would you call the operation of the welfare state in the inner cities, but Democrat's farming their poor ignorant and usually Black crop.