Nikola Harrington

I find it odd that national debt to GDP is the figure economists look at rather than debt to national revenue. It’s like, instead of looking at my debt to income ratio before taking out a loan, I look at the ratio of my debt to the incomes of everyone on my block I could rob

It is both true that Rand believed wars are only justified for self defense and that statist governments have to right to exist. You can’t just invade statist countries willy-nilly, they have to be a threat. That being said, Rand would almost certainly have supported an attack on Iran since Iran effectively declared war on the US during the hostage crisis in 1979. Funding terrorists and developing nuclear weapons has only made more of a case for self-defensive action. Leonard Peikoff, Rand’s heir, notably wrote about the need to eliminate the Iranian regime after 9/11 (see the link). His organization, the Ayn Rand Institute has been supportive of an attack on Iran since it was founded in the 1980s. ari.aynrand.org/issues/foreign…

Ayn Rand spent her entire career explaining that invading slave nations is our right. Ayn Rand despised American libertarians, and it's easy to understand why. Dictatorship—Ayn Rand Lexicon share.google/eIXSy6WD8c3i32…

@Nonviolentmemer @AP4Liberty The novels are fun and informative, but many people find them intimidatingly long. IMO the best place to start is listening to her talk “Philosophy: Who Needs It.” The best summary of her ideas is Peikoff’s book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. m.youtube.com/watch?v=rXtS4F…

@AP4Liberty I have to admit, I've never read a single one of her books. Assume I'm a curious 5 year old who, for some reason, wants to know more. First book recommendation?

I don’t know about influential, but if you want people who haven’t reached blacklist status on television news yet, I have heard Jonathan Hoenig and Amesh Adalja still appear regularly. I have also heard that John Allison had some success at least within his own organization. Other than that, I assume YBS is the most influential Objectivist show, but I don’t have a lot of knowledge of the non-ARI associated Objectivist world

I frequently come across Objectivists who are certain that my tactics, strategy, and method of argumentation simply cannot change minds or sway people to my side, though no evidence is ever presented. Can someone point out the Objectivists who have been wildly successful in swaying people to their views? It seems that with such certainty, there must be a roadmap to follow.

@Lieboisout @RayceRJacobson I personally wouldn’t consider him an influential Objectivist in the way you meant in your original post

@Lieboisout @RayceRJacobson He has done more philosophical content when hosting for the Daily Objective in the past, but I don’t think that show has the same audience as what you are referring to here

@Lieboisout There are plenty of people who know so little about politics to believe this out of ignorance rather than deliberate evasion

Do you think it’s possible for someone to honestly believe the 2020 Presidential election was stolen?

Come to think of it, I’m not sure there was a time when popular, sensationalist, conspiracy-minded media wasn’t prevalent. It makes me think of the yellow journalism of the 1920s and the populist anti-trust pushes of the late 1800s. Even pamphlets from the Revolution, though having the right principles, often blew the concrete issues out of all proportion (think the Boston “Massacre”).

Thinking in terms of bubbles seems more applicable to industries that require outside investment. Bubbles result when investors overinvest. My understanding is that most influencers are probably organic and self-funded, meaning their prevalence is more due to their success with viewers rather than outside funding.

Currently there are a lot of popular, sensationalist, conspiracy minded influencers. Many are obviously grifters. I wonder if it’s a bubble of sorts, similar to economic bubbles. As such, I wonder if it will burst. Thoughts?

@DeeperWithDiego Like hygienically or morally? I’ll always be against government-run anything, but I don’t see anything disgusting about taking a bus or train when it’s safe and convenient.

@voicereason05 When I was 28 and read OPAR for the first time. That was a wild transition.

At what age did you find out, there was no God(s)?

@voicereason05 For what it’s worth, Alex Epstein wrote a piece on this. His impression was that Gates’ position hasn’t changed so much as the moral atmosphere around the climate debate. alexepstein.substack.com/p/bill-gates-h…

Q. Why did Bill Gates change his stance on climate change? A. Microsoft AI requires fossil fuel power.

There was a time not too long ago when communism and woke were described by their opponents as “religious” movements and were bad as such. Were they condemned because people recognize that zealots’ dogmas have no place in government or because they weren’t the right religion?

@Lieboisout This is my impression of Descartes’ epistemological approach, so yes, at least historically. Keep in mind that the term “rationalism” can refer to different things. Objectivists use it in a related, but different way than most philosophers.

Does anyone hold this view? AI Overview ”Philosophers define rationalism as the epistemological view that reason is the primary source of knowledge, holding that the mind can gain knowledge through deduction and innate ideas independent of sensory experience.”

The proper response to the deaths of our servicemen should be a resentment of the senseless destruction evil brings about and a renewed determination to exterminate evil.

The proper response to our military, to the extent that its actions are really protecting our rights, is gratitude for the victories our servicemen achieve, not their sacrifice.

Veterans Day left me thinking about the glorification of the sacrifices of our servicemen that takes place. My conclusion is that this kind of attitude toward our military and war is pretty messed up.

Isn’t this precisely the attitude conservatives used to argue against when they would emphasize that the US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy?

@Lieboisout Um, didn’t the COVID policies make it illegal for people to work or evict tenants? That seems much worse to me than the war on drugs. Or are you specifically talking about just the vaccine mandates?

In terms of individual rights, were the Covid policies worse than the war on drugs? I don’t think so.

If you take the time to get to know someone and their views, you will probably be surprised how coherent and consistent they are and you will have a much better understanding of what they think, why they think it, and what would be most useful for them to hear.

Unfortunately, it seems much more common to brush off all alternative views as stupid or dishonest. People think they aren’t persuasive because others can’t or won’t engage with their arguments. In my experience, this is only the case in a small fraction of people.

It’s surprising to me how many people interested in spreading ideas aren’t at all curious about ideas themselves. I’m not sure how they think they will change people’s minds if they don’t make a genuine effort to understand what people think and what would be persuasive to them.