The substance of my article is correct in its essence, even if the formulations can be beefed up in detail. That's my next project. I recommend David L. Norton's Personal Destinies for what that project might look like.

I read Chris Cathcart's Egoism and Rights and now realise that my "IOFIYCGAWI" objection to Objectivist ethics is misplaced.

(Syllogisms don't cut it, kid)

Er, it is the most basic form of philosophical argument, kid.

The rest of your comment is just the same point repeated. And repetition doesn't cut it, kid.

This may come as a surprise to you, and your essay is certainly indicative that you don't wait to get things right before you put pen to paper, but some people like to think and get it right before printing.

Mr Goode I encourage you to replace your photo with this one. I know give one to Rosie too.

What are you talking about? Is this advocacy for individualism? Or are you trying to be funny?

Kasper, you are a nice guy but you are slowly losing your individuality and just becoming a parrot, and thereby a parody, of others.

If Robert Winefield is found in the barbican, and Jameson in the ramparts of Queen Linz's castle, you are quickly becoming the court jester.

More trollop from our trolling Goode:
"Can you derive ethics from biology? You say you can, but steadfastly refuse even to attempt to show how it's done. You simply declare, "life is the standard of value, and when asked how so, your answer is that you choose to make it so. "

We have demonstrated the formation of morality by deriving it from the facts of reality. Two identifications were required in order to establish that morality is in the first instance a necessity and in the second instance that its standard must be human life. That of a human being and that of its surroundings.

I don't think that it's dogmatism that paralyses the Libertarianz party but rather their lack of PR, diplomacy and communications skills.

You are most definetly a troll!
Your dishonesty expressed on the 'Talk to the Rand' thread showed that you:

1) Delivered no defense of your case for skepticism inspite of pretending to know that one doesn't know yet neglecting to inform how. (Syllogisms don't cut it, kid)

2) You said you would deliver a defense for skepticism and yet you havn't!

3) You accused objectivists for not defending how it is exactly they know anything and on what basis an agent relative for morality was a necessity. We demonstrated it resoundedly!

4) You slivered past solid questions which demanded you to be accountable to the views that you hold and never addressed them. When this became explicit you simply said you didn't have the time and instructed people to be patient!

5) And, in a typical troll like manner after having been embarrassingly laughed off the ' Talk to the Rand' thread you've come back for more. Are you hoping the specifics of the debate have run dry? Hoping for a little amnesia so that you can get on with more dishonest dribble such as your accusations that objectivists didn't defend their views.

Mr Goode I encourage you to replace your photo with this one. I know give one to Rosie too. It would be like best friends wearing the same "kewl" T shirt.... Only not...

According to the link below,

a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

My messages aren't irrelevant or off-topic. My primary intent is neither to provoke other users into an emotional response nor to disrupt normal on-topic discussion. So, no, I'm not a troll.

My primary intent is to show you (Objectivists) the error of your ways. But this has proved to be an uphill struggle, because you prefer dogma to doubt, and Rand-parroting to honest, intellectual inquiry. Can you derive an ought from an is? Can you derive ethics from biology? You say you can, but steadfastly refuse even to attempt to show how it's done. You simply declare, "life is the standard of value," and when asked how so, your answer is that you choose to make it so. But you don't thereby make reality; you fake it. Objectivism is unreason in reason's clothing.

Individual Objectivists may show splendid qualities. Dozens become the brave and loyal sycophants of the Queen Randroid; but the influence of the cult paralyses the political success of the Libertarianz Party. No stronger retrograde force exists in the libertarian movement. Far from being moribund, Objectivism is a militant and proselytizing faith.

So, no, I'm not a troll. But Luke's right about some things. My participation here is worthless, boring, unproductive and a waste of time. It's about time I quit. As for being destructive of political goodwill, political goodwill died a long time ago.

But he's your friend and pomo-guru! How can you speak so ill of him? A "troll"? That would imply bad faith. I can't believe such a thing.

Gird your loins for Goode to initiate a debate on the meaning of the word 'believe.'

So how do you account for the 1999 result?

Libertarianz performed as well as it did in 1999 because it was fronted by a talk-back radio host.

How's TOP coming along?

So, what's the difference between the following two sentences?

You seem to be neglecting the foundations of human knowledge.

You seem to be neglecting the epistemological foundations of human knowledge.

You said you'd answer the questions on your Talk to the Rand thread, and you haven't.

Is that it?!

Is that the full extent of my alleged lies?

... you'd answer the questions on your Talk to the Rand thread, and you haven't.

If you can, please cite (and link to) my alleged lies.

If you can't, then it's you who is the brazen liar and unalloyed filth.

The founder who is passionate about growing objectivism in New Zealand.

Is Objectivism growing in New Zealand?

Have you let Linz know you're interested in joining TOP?

The only time that the Libertarianz party had the most amount of votes was when its founder, an objectivist and activist, ran it. The founder who is passionate about growing objectivism in New Zealand.

"It would be fair to say, no one on SOLO has the slightest idea of exactly what he believes."

Why don't you speak just for yourself and stop to project your lack of any system of thought to others? Besides, according to your non-existent system of morals which you call "general principles" there is no such a thing as fairness. The real failure of Libertarianism is that this unscrupulous movement accommodates people like you, who are parroting slogans like "freedom" and "rights" without to have the slightest idea what is their meaning. That why Rand didn't want to have anything in common with Libertarians

If this is the libertyloop and Libz then I'm pleased to be out of both. And disgusted by those who remain who stay silent about this bullshit.

If I and many others remain silent both here and on the Libertyloop about this bullshit (and that is exactly what is, idiots bullshitting each other) then it is simply because we have come to recognise that it is worthless, boring and not only unproductive but actually destructive - of time, friendships, and political goodwill.

Goode is trolling SOLO (successfully, I might add), and you persist in feeding him.

Rule No. 1 of internet forums: Don't Feed The Trolls.

Don't feel left out, Perigo: you are also extremely accomplished at trolling, reference the Salient 'Muslim Sodomy' article for at least one excellent example.

Anyway, have fun trolling each other, that's all you'll hear from me on this topic. I have much better things to do with my time.

I believe that it's the hegemony of Objectivism within the Libertarianz Party that is the single biggest cause of the party's failure to gain political traction. Of course, my hypothesis is easily put to the test. All it would take to prove me wrong is for someone to form an explicitly Objectivist political party, contest the next general election, and double the Libertarianz Party's 2008 election result.

So how do you account for the 1999 result?

You'd be better to stick with the Christian Heritage Party, Goode. It's Thursday today after all. Tomorrow you can be a Greenie again. Whoopee!

"Objectivism is bat-shit crazy."

Believe it or not, this doesn't constitute a belief system. You can say that any number of philosophical systems are "bat-shit crazy", but that doesn't answer the question of what you actually believe.

"I believe that it's the hegemony of Objectivism within the Libertarianz Party that is the single biggest cause of the party's failure to gain political traction."

Although I can't speak for Auckland, in Wellington I'm not sure anyone (me excluded) in the party considers themselves an Objectivist. They are sympathetic, to be sure, but I can't see how that constitutes an "Objectivist hegemony" in the Libz.

It would be fair to say, no one on SOLO has the slightest idea of exactly what he believes.

It would be fair to say, very few on SOLO have the slightest idea of exactly what I believe. This, despite the fact that I have clearly and consistently stated what I believe over a period of more than a year! Here, for example.

Objectivism is bat-shit crazy.

I believe that it's the hegemony of Objectivism within the Libertarianz Party that is the single biggest cause of the party's failure to gain political traction. Of course, my hypothesis is easily put to the test. All it would take to prove me wrong is for someone to form an explicitly Objectivist political party, contest the next general election, and double the Libertarianz Party's 2008 election result. That's why I'm intrigued by Linz's announcement (below), "It's time for The Objectivist Party," and call for expressions of interest. Any takers?

Go see Hebrews Chapter 11 vs 1.

I think it's not in your interests to quote 'scripture.'

Solo - a free speach website for both objectivists and non-objectivists to debate, deliberate and to dissent is a cult?

Since when did the antithesis of cultism become a cult in itself?

Richard is confusing passion and zealism for ideas, truth and the strictist allegence to reason as cultism when in turn the actual cult of his skepticism and cynicism becomes threated when exposed for being the irrational and impotent set of beliefs it actually is.

The cult thing is so stupid that it seems beyond words.

Campbell is so vicously and clearly exposed that I'm amazed he's willing to go on ripping his reputation up into even smaller pieces - must be a masochistic thing?....

As for Goode and Rosie though - my mind fails to apprehend the kind of muck that must be swiming in their heads.

Faith is the irrational and the unproved. It is certainty without proof. Go see Hebrews Chapter 11 vs 1.
Reason is the logical, the deductive and gives possibility to inferences although not from fantasies.

Faith and reason are still rationally incompatible. This whole God thing is just as non-sensical as Richard's skepticism of which he is only sure that he isn't sure.. However, whilst being sure of not being sure, he's sure that the anti-thesis of cultism is the thesis of cultism too.

It is little wonder why such brain dead non-sense being ejaculated onto the white walls of this precious website demonstrates such dishonest and smearing non-sense.

A cult? That's such a joke... A bit like Rand calling her group the collective... Oh dear... I've referenced something Goode's said to what Rand did? Am I cultist now too?

is on record here as saying in reply to Glenn as to whether he believed in god, "not yet," he replied, which is as close to an answer as we're likely to get.

It would be fair to say, no one on SOLO has the slightest idea of exactly what he believes.

Of course, there has been some discussion of "moral intuition" - but that itself doesn't say anything.

... SOLO is his antipode. He speaks in an unendurable nasal pommie whining monotone. He is anal-retentive. He doesn't listen. He's impervious to reason. He adores esthetic ugliness such as Slayer. He's Politically Correct. Of course he'd say SOLO is a "cult." Truth is, he's the cultist—cult of uncertainty/scepticism Monday, cult of dogmatism/Christianity Tuesday. Two sides of the same cultist coin.

Well as of yet I've enjoyed my membership of SOLO and haven't received an excommunication notice in the post.

So no, I don't think I've joined a cult; unless of course I've been so thoroughly brainwashed to intuit any thought of it being a cult out of existence. But that doesn't sound like my argument...

And have you found it to be so? (Of course, if you say 'yes' you'll be cast into outer darkness!)

I'd like to know his answer to my Seventh Day Adventist question.

He meant SOLO - it was soon after I joined at a meeting of the Wellington Libz.

Let me get this straight. Goode warned you you were getting involved with a "cult"? Did he mean SOLO, Libz, Objectivism ... all of the above?

Goode, the apologist for faith in general and Christianity in particular, said this?

Which "cult" that shares his premises—such as Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance—allows the completely free discussion that goes on here, I wonder?

"No, it's not. If I wanted to claim that I know that there is X, I'd say, "I know that there is X." But when I say, "there is X," I'm merely claiming that there is X."

So what then, according to you, differentiates between saying "there is X" based on knowledge (aka, there's a computer in front of me as I write or else I couldn't be writing this), as opposed to saying "there is X" based on the arbitrary (aka green men on Mars, which we have no evidence to believe)?

"We cannot, but I do? That's a contradiction."

Don't drop the context - I thought a PhD in philosophy would know better?

"There's a place for big words like 'epistemological'. The sentence above isn't one of them."

Yes it is.

"But they did, and we're still here."

Let's try it out then!

CAVEMAN A: Well, I'm out to get the food for tonight.
CAVEMAN GOODE: Wait! There's a giant Santa out there ready to kill you!
CAVEMAN A: How do you know this?
CAVEMAN GOODE: I don't - there's no good reason to believe in a giant Santa waiting out there to kill you.
CAVEMAN A: Well, you got me there.

All the cavemen died soon after from starvation.

"Well, you're young and your mind's been corrupted. I warned you a while ago that you were getting involved in a cult."

I'm not sure why you still think that the argument from intimidation works on me.

As for cults - they arise as a result of man denying any reason he might have - of course, substituting it for the collective mentality. By destroying the barrier between the real and the arbitrary, that's exactly what you're doing.

Can't be done, dear, can it?!

Ethical intuitionism can be explicated, of course. And it can be defended, too. I hope to get around to both, but not any time soon, which was what Jeff was asking.

I've been meaning to read Michael Huemer's book, Ethical Intuitionism. But, as Huemer himself asks, "who has time for reading books these days?" For those who do, here's an excerpt.

Richard, saying "there is X" is a claim to definite knowledge

No, it's not. If I wanted to claim that I know that there is X, I'd say, "I know that there is X." But when I say, "there is X," I'm merely claiming that there is X.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say, as someone once said.

we cannot claim it as a fact - which is what you're doing when you say "there is X".

We cannot, but I do? That's a contradiction.

As I said before, it is a claim to definite knowledge.

As I said before, it's not.

You seem to be neglecting the epistemological foundations of human knowledge.

There's a place for big words like 'epistemological'. The sentence above isn't one of them.

I'm feeling rather pleased right now that men in the stone age didn't use your philosophy of assumption without knowledge. Humanity wouldn't have stood a chance if they did.

But they did, and we're still here.

As to my "corruption of my young mind" - this comment isn't even worth discussion.

Well, you're young and your mind's been corrupted. I warned you a while ago that you were getting involved in a cult.

Then again, I am not a drug user.

Is this comment worth discussion? At any rate, you're the one seeing contradictions that aren't there, and not seeing contradictions that are.

So why not man up and acknowledge it's indefensible?

As Rosie's Uncreated Creator is.

Any chance of that explication/defense of ethical intuitionism any time soon?

No.

Richard, saying "there is X" is a claim to definite knowledge.

Indeed, there may be green men on Mars - in which case the claim would be correct. However, as there is no way to know that there are green men on Mars, we cannot claim it as a fact - which is what you're doing when you say "there is X". As I said before, it is a claim to definite knowledge.

You seem to be neglecting the epistemological foundations of human knowledge. For a PhD, I thought you should be able to understand the link.

In any case, I'm feeling rather pleased right now that men in the stone age didn't use your philosophy of assumption without knowledge. Humanity wouldn't have stood a chance if they did.

As to my "corruption of my young mind" - this comment isn't even worth discussion. Then again, I am not a drug user.

--NIOF doesn't follow from rational self interest.(?)
--IOFIYCGAWI does.(?)

You can't get away with it. Everything costs something. What is the cost? How does it all net out? As for the first above, it's rational self-interest to be immoral? To violate others' rights? Morality is arbitrary without referents to human nature? Human nature is arbitrary?

We can liken human nature to a river we float down. What part and how much of the river we use for that is up to us. Sometimes psychopaths and sociopaths and deficient innocents, even pure innocents, wash up on the banks or get caught in eddies or whirlpools.

Several things are being attacked here: morality as such, self interest, rationality, individualism (see morality), individual rights and reality itself by gross implication.

"If you can get away with it" is the crudest kind of pragmatism. Much beloved by the Hitlers and J. Dallmers who so obviously revelled in their "rational self interest."

~Retch~

--Brant

If you told a five year old this ... they'd understand the contradiction.

They wouldn't, since there is no contradiction.

There is no contradiction between statements of the form

X and
We do not know that X

because it's possible that X is the case although we don't know it.

There are lots of things we don't know, including far too many of the things you think you do.

The corruption of your young mind is nigh complete.

Are you going to join TOP?

Patience is a virtue.

when are you going to honour your word and answer the questions?

He asks, who brought up a Christian Libertarian Party? He did!!!! He asked his fellow-intrinsicist Reed what he thought of the idea.

That's right, Linz. I asked Reed what he thought of the idea of a Christian libertarian party. I said nothing about forming such a party. But, congratulations - this time your misrepresentation of me is merely an embellishment of what I actually said, rather than a complete fabrication.

You, however, have announced, "It's time for The Objectivist Party," and called for expressions of interest. Any takers?

Witch-Dr Goode thinks there could be green men on Mars. Or God. And values without a standard of value. Values that come from his God.

But yes, you're right. I hereby apologise to all five-year-olds.

Lindsay, I think you're being too harsh on five year olds. If you told a five year old this (to paraphrase Goode's argument in "Talk to the Rand)...:

There are green men on Mars.
We do not know there are green men on Mars.

... they'd understand the contradiction.

I hate to break it to you, but you have to treat Witch-Doctor Goode as a five-year-old, so elementary are the things he doesn't get. But he's more than a mere infant—he's a snotty prat.

He asks, who brought up a Christian Libertarian Party? He did!!!! He asked his fellow-intrinsicist Reed what he thought of the idea.

"What a load of incoherent bollocks."

Richard, you have a PhD in philosophy. I didn't want to make it trying to explain Objectivism to a five year old.

Any chance of that explication/defense of ethical intuitionism any time soon? You can even copy and paste things you agree with if you want. (From anywhere but Wikipedia, please.)

Graham Capill is in jail, not in business.

What are you trying to say?

Who (apart from Linz) said anything about forming a Christian libertarian party?

I mean that in the sense of for you finding a vehicle for your anti-life philosophy, combined with god-bothering, that would be a seductive enterprise, surely.

I hear Graham Capill is looking for suitors.

Which of the following definitions of 'suitor' did you intend?

1 : one that petitions or entreats
2 : a party to a suit at law
3 : one who courts a woman or seeks to marry her
4 : one who seeks to take over a business

I hear Graham Capill is looking for suitors.

It's time for The Objectivist Party.

Bring it on!

Needless to say, I won't be joining.

What a load of incoherent bollocks.

> But the NIOF principle doesn't follow from "rational self-interest".
> IOFIYCGAWI (initiation of force if you can get away with it) does.

I wonder which part of rational self-interest eluded him.

Wotta skunk. If this is the libertyloop and Libz then I'm pleased to be out of both. And disgusted by those who remain who stay silent about this bullshit. That'd be the current Saddamite leadership backed by the Castle Clique.

It's time for The Objectivist Party. All interested, let me know. Let Witch-Doctors Goode, Wikiriwhi and Reed form their Christian Libertarian freak-show. Let the Randroid knee-jerkers say Libz was too early all along and scurry off to Quixotic irrelevance. Let the passionate reasonists, the only ones with speakers in their midst, set the country alight with an authentic, non-dichotomous Objectivist/libertarian vision.