I can agree with your objection to the use of the golden rule IF the people irrationally reject their nature as human beings. Not that an irrationally based society would last very long before it collapsed from within. But in the meantime, if everyone wanted to live in a collectivist society, the resulting society could last for awhile, but it would eventually fail.

I would say that expecting masses of people to even spell epistemology is a bit over the top. There needs to be something easier to understand if its going to catch on. Maybe thats why it hasnt caught on so far. Even the USA is not intellectually consistent

I can agree with the theory of your argument but take exception to the words. Most everyone learned the golden rule as you state it but that is not a statement of logic. What if one were a masochist, pain for everyone? Logic would command one to treat another as they would like to be treated, that would be under objectivist principles.

Man can live their lives without the formal education of philosophy but it is impossible for man to live with a philosophy. But that life would be full of contradictions and have voids of what could have been. Quality of life would suffer.

Man in search of a proper education should have philosophy at the top of the list. Study of the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical branches would put into proper perspective the world around them, the proper method of obtaining knowledge and the moral fiber of knowledge.

To me the two main subjects for a good life in a modern world would be philosophy and finance.

Getting along is a matter really of treating others as you want to be treated. It takes thought to reduce this to practice, and what u wind up I think is the result of objectivist principles. I don’t think one has to be schooled in philosophy to be a good member of society. The only philosophy I have seen that actually works is one based on reality and reason.

It would take a very special person indeed that would even stand a chance as everyone else would end up depressed and commit suicide in a short period of time. Not good to start an argument with a fallacy as the basis of that argument. But let's move on and accept the basis for the sake of the argument.

First let me start out that in nature man is a social animal. Man requires at minimum food and shelter from the elements to survive. But the social being is not based on efficiency, it's based on protection. The efficiency of man is based on experience. The more experience, the more efficient the action.

Now by adding society, efficiency is now diminished as two does not mean twice the result because now time is spent determining who does what. Even then one will invariably do more than the other and will be the loser in the transaction.

However as the group grows, someone is going to project a role superior to the others and a ruler is born. That is when things go down hill because a ruler is going to need enforcers to make sure all are doing their fair share.

But the question is why does one need a ruler? Rules yes, rulers no. Without the ruler, there is a free society where men cooperate for mutual benefit.

This is where I may have an excess of tomatoes where one of my neighbors has an excess of cucumber and another an excess of lettuce and we all get to dine on a wonderful salad instead of a singular product. That is known as capitalism, trade by agreement instead of trade by force.

But what is happening not only in the US but in the world is an issue of morality. For a free society to operate that society must be a moral society because the state of society is proportional to the morality of that society.

"No people will tamely surrender their liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders." - Samuel Adams.

Being alone on a desert island requires a LOT of time to meet basic needs, and its not very efficient.

So being a member of a society where free trade ups the efficiency and gets you much more than you could do yourself if alone.

But, I think that there comes a point in a society where its just too large and stops being efficient because people change from wanting power over nature, to wanting power over other people.

At that point, I think I it starts to take more time to deal with the results of that thinking, than it would take to just handle my own affairs.

I think we have gotten to that point in the USA

Excellent observation!!! Thumbs Up!!!

But I agree with them. In the standards of debate there is a very narrow window where Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person) is valid.

I used it when I came to this site but got big time lazy and stepped over the bounds. I rightly got my wrist slapped and agreed to correct the error of my ways, albiet:

"It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

And I have enjoyed my debates with Turner38. His arguments may have flaws but he debates them in earnest.

Odumbo never really cared about socialism, that neither was nor is his goal. His actual goal is destruction of the country by divide and conquer.

Every thing about Odumbo has been deeply buried which is not in and of itself an easy task. There is some really big money involved, bigger even than Soros himself even thought he is the public emblem of what is happening.

It was through research on the Federal Reserve system that I started coming across strange connections. The Napoleon war with England was one of the main keys that started unlocking doors. From Woodrow Wilson:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world -- no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Eisenhour stated the problem as such:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

But he was wrong, dangerously wrong for the military industrial complex is but wishful thinking without capital.

You mention Medicaid and have hit a bull's eye. Medicaid during the Odumbocare argument before those mystical beings in black robes' opinion was sacrosanct.

It's whole purpose within the Odumbocare law was to get the states to increase the size of their populations on Medicaid and then to dump the full financial burden on them.

Medicine is not health. To those that believe medicine cures is hoping on what never was and will never be. It is ignorance that supports this belief and to those choosing to remain ignorant get what they ask for.

As so eloquently stated by Alexis de Tocqueville:

"In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own."

You should look up that avatar, it has an interesting story. It was once flown outside Custom House and did not always have 50 stars. Merchant ships used to fly that flag as it is the sign of the merchant to let a foreign port know they came in peace. Never a more appropriate symbol for an anarchist. But wait, your argument purports a tendency to ignore meanings of words not to your liking, very objective…not.

I have two objectives on what I read, first and foremost is the advancement of knowledge in current research and second is for entertainment with good plot and writing style. "1984" would never have risen up high enough for me to read but by chance. One friend was returning the book to another friend and I had the time so I borrowed it. "Animal Farm", I saw the movie and while I am of the comprehension that books are always much better than the transition to script, the book just does not warrant being read when there is so many others better. Time is not unlimited.

I'm not into science fiction, never have been, never will be so Lucifer's Hammer will never make it to my read list. My current book is "Tragedy and Hope" by Carroll Quigley. This is another book that has been long on my list and only now is the time appropriate to tackle this work. I have studied history many decades and in the dictates of law, I have done all my discovery and it has come time to dispose the main witness, Quigley. I am hoping to either verify or reform what I have come to understand from this master of history.

Actually I find Turner38 to be a little delusional but not unreasonable. From the arguments he/she has posted I would say he/she is young but so long as the mind remains open, will grow.

I did not critique Burton's acting, I critiqued Burton himself. I believe that Burton and Taylor where the 60s rendition of today's overpaid idiots in Hollywood.

If it could be done copies of Anthem should be sent to all the Dimm's in Congress so they know what they're doing to our country. Sometimes I think that many of the Dimm's in Congress and across this country are illiterate. They might be frightened to read Ayn Rand's books. If they did, it would destroy their own political philosophy.

I think he's objecting to you arguing with a sledge hammer.

You're not about to be kicked out for disagreeing with turner38. You're being asked to review the Galt's Gulch Code of Conduct... because you're violating it.

If you'll review the Code of Conduct, you'll see that it does not say "everyone in Galt's Gulch must agree with Gulcher turner38 because that guy is awesome."

What it does say is: "Please do not cast obscenities or be rude." and "Please do not wage personal attacks or chastise other Gulch members. Ad hominem and/or "flaming" is not permitted."

Code of Conduct: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...

What is a fairy tale about a rebellion of freedom-loving people? Ever heard of the American revolution? You evidently don't understand that brainwashing is not something you do with an integrated philosophical system that is founded on reason. Snippets of attempts to smear and intimidate are not effective counter-arguments.

Very intresting video. I had not seen that before. I knew Obamacare was a back room deal which bought off enough sides to get it passed by the democrats, I still think Obamacare wanted socialized medicaid, but knew he couldnt get that passed at all. So he put something in place which would usurp the power courtesy of the significant opposition who were bought off. I kind of agree it was a power grab, because typically government never really cares if it actually works (which it didnt). The insurance companies would never have gone along if it was socialized medicine, as it would put them out of business. As it is, they got billions of wctra money from Obamacare.

I really think Obama knew it wouldnt work, and would lead to medicaid for evryone, which is why in the bill was such an expansion as it was for medicaid..

The end goal is free medicaid for everyone. Once people see how great it is to have zero cost healthcare (for them), they will never give that up

OK tough guy, you may want to have a gander at the very boring Galt's Gulch Code of Conduct before your zeal gets away from you...

https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...

Odumbo really cared less about socialized medicine. He was all about power, being the king. And he wanted the show Hitlerly how it was done to show superiority over her efforts during Slick Willies term where she failed miserably.

There once was an excellent documentary about the whole process including the back room dealings. Then everyone started puking on Odumbocare and it disappeared from Netflix but is still available.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/fi...

Chinese people are really reserved. It is hard for a westerner to be accepted. They will be polite but you are still an outsider until you prove yourself.

I think Obama really wanted pure socialized Medicaid for everyone. He knew that would not pass, so he opted for something that would sucker the insurance companies into supporting, but he know it would fail financially. A few years of failure would convince the populace to go for universal Medicaid., which is happening now

I agree the Chinese people are very friendly. Their govt sucks

Fairy tale ending absolutely. Where all the little heroes run for a supposedly hidden valley instead of standing for their values.

I had respect for Hank Reardon when he stood before his oppressors and dishonored their authority. I lost that respect when he didn't turn and leave after that pronouncement. He denied them jurisdiction and then stood for their seizure of same.

Ludwig was prone to unreasonable logic. All economists are. Economist try and instill their art as science while generally ignoring that little detail their science is based in forensics not projection. Anything conclusions not based on what is has as much validity as using the dartboard method. Both contain about as much validity on what has yet to manifest.

Now I am an avid follower of Mises Institute and look forward to lectures by the likes of Napolitano and DiLorenzo and to a lesser degree Woods. Now while many there worship at the feet of Rothbard, I think he is about as fruity as Socrates, Plato, Locke, Kant and Molyneux. My favorite is DiLorenzo even though he is an economics professor in one of the top tyrannical states in the union.

Wow, from what I have seen from your posts that I have read, this is unexpected.

I'm not sure at whether I should thank you or freak out but I will choose to thank you.

Now on the debate side of things, your opinion states I have flaws but none that you have been able to address. Repeating things over and over again does not make the untruth truth. You need to provide sources that show how your opinion was formed which you have not done.

In my argument I have shown you sources and offered an analysis of how it applies to my opinion. To just throw a source out there is a logical fallacy deemed "Appeal to Authority". Sort of like trying to use Einstein in an argument on politics which was not his field of expertise. Einstein's authority was based on Physics not politics.

I would also suggest you use introspection in respect to your quote from Ayn Rand. Some of your epistemological premises are in error. There can be no conflicts.

I am an anarchist and have pledged to fight, not join anything not in the concept of free man. I am their nightmare manifested.

I have never granted authority but to the just. The president of this large company I used to be with referred to me as his little a-hole as I had no fear and told him things exactly as they appeared with no sugar coating. When he brought me into a senior staff meeting, everyone there used to sweat wondering just whose career I would end this time. I really didn't care as I was under the influence of Ayn Rand and served at my grace, not theirs. I was considered much too dangerous to let go to a competitor.

But Newman better connotates my spirit than Neuman. What we have in common is we both agree that it's a mad, mad world out there.

I never really had much respect for Burton. My mom took me as a young teenager to see "Who's afraid of Virginia Wolf?' I was convinced that neither him nor Taylor were actually acting which later proved out. Yeah my mom was a little saucy as that was a very controversial film back then deemed unfit for young viewers.

But you are just scratching the surface of where I've been and what I've done. As I have stated, I am the luckiest hillbilly ever to come out of the state of West Virginia which is a pretty tall claim being West Virginia was a Rockefeller stronghold.

With that said, let me ask. Do you understand my avatar?