And Stalin was an atheist
Yes, Stalin was an atheist. But the disconnect here is that Stalin didn't do what he did IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM. Now, if Richard Dawkins murders millions of people, you may have a point. Contrast that to Leonard Piekoff, who is batshit crazy and puts his batshit crazy exclusively under the umbrella of Objectivism. Look, I'm not saying that all Objectivists are as batshit crazy as he is, but I am saying that he has been a significant part of Objectivism since Rand's inception of it (as he was a close, personal friend of Rand herself). To ignore completely his role or the ARI's role in Objectivism would be misleading at best.
So if we're going to take the "people, not ideas" route then why the Piekoff monopoly? Why not a section for Yaron Brook, Don Watkins, yours truly and every other Objectivist on the planet? See the problem? Again: Objectivism is an collection of ideas, not a person conevtionaly chosen by another person who passionately hates those ideas. Now you know perfectly well the reason you've chosen Piekoff over any other Objectivist and it's not because he was "close to Ayn Rand" (many were) it's because he fits your view of what an Objectivist should be.
What part of the Objectivist philosophy justifies bombing part of New York?! What other Objectivists agrees with him? Surely we all should: he is doing it in the name of Objectivism, right. Bullshit! The guy's just bonkers and that is why you have picked him and you know it. Very dirty tactic, very dirty. Just like the Stalin = atheist tactic. Dirty.
But again, you are ignoring the significance that Piekoff has on modern Objectivism. If not for the fact that ARI is one of, if not the, leading institutions on Objectivism and was looked at by Objectivists that way, we could use the Stalin was an atheist argument. But, every time I look in the media about Objectivism, ARI and Peikoff are the ones touting Objectivist ideals. It's like having an article on Catholics and you wanting to leave out references to the Pope. However, if you want to add some of the not-crazies to the article, I can see no problem with you doing so.
Well I can't be bothered repeating myself. Look at ARCTV and see who the main speaker is there. Recently it has changed to Don Watkins and Alex Epstein seems to be coming more prominent now, but once the majority were given by Yaron Brook. As an Objectivist who knows many Objectivists I can tell you that none of us look up to Piekoff and none of us can find any justification under Objectivist philosophy for blowing up New York if the Ground Zero Mosque is built. That contradicts the in the name of as opposed to nutter who happens to be one of them no matter how prominent (you believe) he is logic you were invoking earlier: we should all agree with him. Maybe you should stop applying cheap stereotypes from the outside towards a group you know little about beyond slurs and said stereotypes?
I know little about? Dude, one of my best friends happens to be an Objectivist (and he agrees with both of us that Piekoff is a nutter), and that's where I get my knowledge of Objectivism from (though I completely disagree with its philosophy). More to the point, I was applying "Devil's advocate" principles to see if you understood that which you were talking about. I completely understand and see your points, but my major point, then, is that the movement needs to do a better job distancing itself from that whack-a-loon because, every time I hear someone from ARI on the radio, they are so far out of it that it does as great a disservice to your movement as Sarah Palin does to the conservative movement, we savvy?
"One of my best friends happens to be an Objectivist (and he agrees with both of us that Piekoff is a nutter)" you mean the man all Objectivists look up to? Please make your mind up. And as for disservice to the conservative movement I guess I'm like you towards the Objectivist movement: since I hate their guts there's little they can do to better their position with me. I don't know whether Sarah Palin is a genuine nobody or an intelligent woman who is put forward as an imbecile in the name of the old "look! I'm just one of you!" tactic. Despicable either way.
Anyway my key point is this that there are two kind of "crazy person associations" (let's call it): the nutter who is a and the nutter who does in the name of. Looking at the evidence (such as your friend's opinion) I'd say Piekoff is an example of the former with regard to Objectivism so giving him pride of place in the Objectivist movement seems very much like the dirty tactic that anti-atheists employ when they say Stalin was an atheist. Stalin was a psychopath, that's all that matters.
Sometime in the future I think I'll right a sensible version of the Objectivism article as a link to my userpage and just completely override the current pile of garbage that is there, but I'm afraid all my work will be undone or that everybody will litter it with the same "Ayn Rand Waz Somka Dyd Canser Lololol" crap in ten seconds flat.
"One of my best friends happens to be an Objectivist (and he agrees with both of us that Piekoff is a nutter)' you mean the man all Objectivists look up to?"
Again, I refer you to my taking the position of Devil's advocate here.
Well what do the Objectivists on the radio say? Government should be the protector of our rights? All people, wealthy and poor, should be left alone unless they violate the rights of others? You and only you have a right to what you produce and another person doesn't have a right to it just because they need it/can't produce it?
Tell me what they say and I'll tell you why they are or aren't consistent with what I understand Objectivism to be. And if they are I'll explain why I think they are moral and proper and why I believe I have history on my side. hell, you don't even need history: you want the most dramatic illustration of the difference between capitalism and socialism (not wishy-washy mixed economies, but real socialism?) Google "Korean peninsula night time satellite map".
The difference between capitalism and communism is literally, not figuratively, the difference between lightness and darkness. And just look at Japan. Where there isn't a mountain there is light. Would that be Japan today if the Soviets had conquered it, it had become a socialist proxy and remained one to this day? Here's an interesting read on that subject. (Don't worry, it's apolitical.)
The distinction I've often heard most that differentiates Objectivists from libertarians is that (and, again, this is only to my social-anarchist ears), at the end of the day, libertarians seems interested in having some sort of collective good as the ends to their means. Most objectivists I've heard speak (the majority of which are, like it or not, from ARI) seem to have an individualistic good as the ends to their means. In other words, most libertarians I've listened to believe that the collective society is better with less intervention from corporations and governments because we'll all be better able to take care of ourselves and, when we can do that, we can then take better care of those (the elderly, the poor, the sick) around us.
Contrast that with the oft-promoted (accurate or otherwise) Objectivist goals of a completely individualistic society: a society where I've got mine, now you go get yours or starve to death. I've actually, factually heard a member of ARI state on Thom Hartmann's program that giving to charity was immoral because it goes against "your own interests to give money to others and not expect a return." I don't care who you are, a society that is 100% about the interests of the individual is not a society but, rather, nihilism. A society that bases itself around social Darwinism as its goal cannot last (as noted by the fate of the Ik people in Charles Derber's book The Wilding of America)
Not true in all cases. Some libertarians base their political philosophy on natural rights. The real difference is that Objectivism is an all-encompassing (pseudo-)philosophy that you have to buy into wholesale. That's why Rand hated the libertarians -- they ripped off her political philosophy without espousing her totally broken and long-refuted epistemology and metaphysics.
Well if you heard an Objectivist saying that giving to charity is immoral then he's certainly got the wrong end of the stick. Ayn Rand claimed that charity was morally neutral: that is one was allowed to do it but had no obligation to do it. Yaron Brook, who I have mentioned on many occasions now, has pointed out that when America was economical free there was, what somebody at the time called "an embarrassing" amount of private charity and there is nothing wrong with private charity at all because nobody wants to see people dieing in the streets. If you can give me that Objectivist's name I'd be grateful as he/she needs a good talking to.
Many libertarians are highly individualistic too, but yes, one of the many tenets of Objectivism is that your life belongs to you and that another person's need is not a moral claim upon it. If you see somebody going hungry and you don't like it then you are perfectly welcome to give away 90% of your wage slip/profits to help that person, but that person does not have a right to point a gun at your head and take it if you don't and he doesn't have a right to hire a force wielding third party like the government of the Mafia to do it for him either.
Incidentally when there is government teat-sucking there is a lot less private charity, when there is economic freedom there is a lot more. I'll find a few of Yaron Brook's lectures/radio interviews where he says just this. I'd certainly like to hear that radio interview you're talking about.
To put it simply individualism is about free choice: you are allowed to help those in need if you like but you are not forced to help them if you don't want to. In the real world, in a free society, most people are good and most people do want to help. Nothing in the world wrong with that.
I'd like to give you that person's name, but there have been sooooo damn many ARI people Thom Hartmann has debated over the years the fingering the correct one would be impossible. But, just the same, I'll look and see if I can find it, as I sorta remember about when that episode aired. It may have been Yaron Brooks for all I know (as he's been on Hartmann before). But, like I said, I'll look through the archives and see if I can find it.
Whoever it was it most certainly was not Yaron Brook! And there's not that many people at the ARI either. What exactly did he say? Sometimes we have an ear for hearing we want to hear. Did the person really say "it's immoral to give to charity" (i.e. you are not allowed to do it) or the actual Objectivist view, that held by Ayn Rand herself, that it is morally neutral (that you don't have to do it)? If it's your personal opinion that charity (or forced redistribution of wealth) is a moral obligation and you have certain preconceived ideas about what an Objectivist should say it's possible that you may have misunderstood what was said. Or rather heard what you wanted to hear.
Excuse my skepticism but I just don't believe anyone from the ARI would phrase it the way you claim they did. Read Ayn Rand's own words, I provided you with a link. You claimed earlier that Ayn Rand is the first and foremost voice on Objectivism (not so unreasonable) so the link I provided should show you what the Objectivist's view of charity is: morally neutral, allowed but not obligatory. That's the view that I share. What about your friend?
Sorry, *conveniently chosen. How I do spelling?
I wouldn't worry too much about spelling on talkpage debates. As long as everything is coherent, the spelling isn't that big of a deal.
These captchas are starting to annoy me too.
More accurately, not only that but if Dawkins murdered a bunch of people for believing in God and shouted "ATHEISM IS THE ONE TRUE WAY", there'd be a point. Essentially how Albania had state atheism for many years with a high level of persecution of religious groups because they were religious (rather than heretical of the Glorious Leader's ideas). It really has to be in the name of atheism for it to be the case, if Dawkins suddenly went batshit mental without specifying a cause, we may as well say that it's evolutionary biology that caused it, not atheism - we can't privilege the hypothesis that it's atheism.