I'm with you...

Just prior to retiring, I went on an email rant (to a small group at work) over what I thought was favoritism for school teachers, in Washington state. Apparently, if I take early retirement (as a radio tech), I can't go back to work until I turn 65, or risk losing my pension. However, if a teacher takes early retirement, they are wholly exempt from that restriction and can work an additional 3 years, with pay.

I aired my feelings of being a second class employee and shortly thereafter, our group lead called me to chastise me. While his argument that the venue for my rant was probably improper, he justified his comments by remarking on the fact that the spouses of some of my colleagues were school teachers.

My thought was WTF difference does THAT make? So, somebody might be offended...I was being offended and that doesn't count?

Anyway, as difficult as it is, we've just got to try to let these things roll off our backs. Like I constantly told my wife, while we were raising our kids "Pick your battles" and "Be the parent".

Remember that while some may vehemently disagree with you, there are many more who agree and would miss your wisdom on GG.

I am on the same page regarding GF. As it played out, he was just a tool used to get the fires roaring -- and it sure didn't require much tinder to move things along.

She' has no idea what she is for or against, she's strictly a politician, has a need have the power and to be in control of everything. Perhaps she should set an example, strip her security detail of all their guns. An how can there be a gun pandemic in New York, yet she claims to have the lowest number of gun killings per capita. Who did those shootings, was it licensed permit holders?

I believe the George Floyd incident was planned as perhaps something just went wrong. I mean look at all the video. And look at all the video of the January 6th "insurrection", it looked as though professional cameramen set it all up and were doing a documentary, and acting was atrocious. Not to change the subject, but back to the set up of Jan 6th again, https://www.bitchute.com/video/DYlb92...

Thanks D -- you saved me a bit of typing right there.

Look in the mirror and check your premises.

Are you assuming the obvious faults of those you support to those who disagree with the state tyranny that you appear to support?

Don't allow the lies, that the state media constantly broadcasts, create prejudices that interfere with your rational thought.

“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” - Ayn Rand

“The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromise is the transmitting rubber tube.” - Ayn Rand

“A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.” - Ayn Rand

"Make every allowance for errors of knowledge; do not forgive or accept any break of morality.” - Ayn Rand

"Tyranny is any political system (whether absolute monarchy or fascism or communism) that does not recognize individual rights (which necessarily include property rights). The overthrow of a political system by force is justified only when it is directed against tyranny: it is an act of self-defense against those who rule by force. For example, the American Revolution." - Ayn Rand

"Ask yourself why totalitarian dictatorships find it necessary to pour money and effort into propaganda for their own helpless, chained, gagged slaves, who have no means of protest or defense. The answer is that even the humblest peasant or the lowest savage would rise in blind rebellion, were he to realize that he is being immolated, not to some incomprehensible noble purpose, but to plain, naked human evil." - Ayn Rand

Except in illustration or obvious humorous sarcasm I can go along with you on direct personal insults and name calling. However, on the “or demand further answers from me” part I take exception. If you or anyone else on this board makes a statement the author should be responsible and able to back it up or explain it or back down from the position. Using Ayn Rand’s words to circumvent that responsibility is disgusting at best. You want us to believe you are an Objectivist. No real Objectivist would do that, IMHO.

Long winded self righteous rubbish and word games will not be missed. I've never seen any call for violence on this site, it's that simple.
Cute, your gonna shrug,

there are none so blind as that close their own eyes to the realities of the world

This place has gotten a little rougher. So, I appreciate this post. That said...I've seen other Objectivist boards get MUCH more offensive. Everybody struggles with their own philosophy. So, some patience is required in a forum like this. I recently had a nice ignore stint when comments toward me seemed like petty sniping - not adding to the discussion nor constituting an argument to evaluate. So be it. Everybody has a bad day....That's something I've been saying a lot lately with the shit I'm seeing...Haha!

"You cannot justify your call for the initiation of force by simply saying that someone else did it first."

If someone initiates force against you, you can not initiate it in return. Because the force initiation has already happened. In that case you are responding to force with force - not initiating it.

This applies to "calls" for it as well. Indeed, the shift to "calls" rather than action is a slippery one because while force initiation is pretty clear, one man's "call for force" is another's basic expression of thought. Think that sounds crazy? "Silence is violence" is out there. Cries of someone talking somewhere with a different viewpoint is routinely referred to as violence. "Misgendering" by not capitulating to someone's narcissistic insistence on artificial "pronouns" is routinely proclaimed to be violence.

Now I would, and do, argue against each of those. But that doesn't detract from the fact that by shifting from actual initiation of force to generic 'calls' for it you go from solid ground to shaky ground at best. Further, consider the executioner fulfilling a death sentence. They are initiating force against someone specifically due to the condemned initiating force on others, and this is an act that Rand, and Objectivism, does consider moral. More stringent rules or barriers to expressing it than in perpetrating it are non-sensical. Thus, at a minimum, all that is "allowed" in the case of actual physical force are allowed in literary or verbal expression. But more on that later.

Now as to figure of speech, you're incorrect on that. Objectively so.
"That comedian was killing on stage last night"
"You're killin' me Smalls"
"Break a leg!" - a whole different meaning based purely on context. Say it to a performer and it is a figure of speech wishing them well. Say to a skateboarder and it could be you're wanting them to actually break a leg. Say it to a fighter and you're calling for physical harm on someone else.
"You're comparing apples and oranges"

A categorical rejection of "figure of speech" is absurd and demonstrates either an unwillingness to think beyond the literal surface, or a lack of capacity for it. Such a categorical rejection is not worthy of someone who envisions themselves as an Objectivist. After all, it is exceedingly rare that someone is literally objecting to someone comparing apples to oranges, and nearly always it is used to assert someone is attempting to compare incomparably different things in an unreasonable manner.

But "Apples and oranges" or "you're comparing apples and oranges" is more concise and, as a figure of speech, easily understood. Speaking of apples and oranges ...

Rand defined it as physical force, not words. Therefore your tirade about "calls for violent action" is both incorrect in the sense of Rand's discussion on physical force initiation, and another broad categorical rejection.

The broad categorical rejection is demonstrative of a lack of understanding the importance of context. As my examples of figures of speech above demonstrate, context matters. In many cases it is what matters most. It was a"figure of speech" for Rand to write "There are only the Rights of Man — rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals." (The Virtue of Selfishness) and not be claiming that women lack these rights.

As you apparently refuse to discuss specific cases in their context, your broad categorical rejection of context - including figures of speech - is a rejection of Objectivist practice.

As Rand herself wrote: "The difference between an exchange of ideas and an exchange of blows is self-evident. The line of demarcation between freedom of speech and freedom of action is established by the ban on the initiation of physical force." - Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand.

Notice the phrase she used was "initiation of physical force." Nor was this a one-time usage. In concluding I offer the following to go with the above emphasis (it is but a few examples - not an exhaustive list):

"A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent — his right has been violated.

"Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division — not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man." - Textbook of Americanism.

"A crime is a violation of the rights of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others--i.e., the recourse to violence--that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong). Ideas, in a free society, are not a crime--and neither can they serve as the justification of a crime." - The Anti-Industrial Revolution.

Whether you like it or not, someone wishing you dead is expressing an idea, not an initiation of physical force. Even claiming someone should kill you is an expression, not an act. And before you go saying that someone reading that and doing it makes it real, you must concede that they acted of their own free will and as an objective standard bears the sole responsibility for their act. You'd have to, at best, prove they were coerced into doing it by the author in order to objectively tie them together in guilt.

If you came to this forum as a place to talk about Rand, there is none better IMHO. That being said, to expect everyone here to upvote you for every comment you make is to misunderstand the voting system entirely. Votes are marks of value (+1) or of contradiction to value (-1). You are certainly welcome to cite your opinions, but understand that you are encouraged to cite principles and examples - especially from acknowledged philosophers like Rand - which comport with Reality. Statements which support or encourage viewpoints which have a history of disagreeing with Reality will get downvoted.

To address several of your concerns, please consider the following.

"I know from experience that as soon as I say that someone will respond demanding that I cite examples."

That is the standard of everyone here in the Gulch. Speculation and hypothesis may be interesting, but not valuable. The expectation is to take that hypothesis to the next level and do something. Invent something. Flesh out your ideas by seeing if they comport with someone else's. Anyone can dream. (Leftists are prodigious at it.) We're interested in that dream's intersection with Reality.
I should also mention that I'm a State Debate Judge. The simplest way to win points in a debate is to call out statements an opponent made but failed to support with a source. An unsupported argument is a failed argument.

“Death to traitors” where the word traitor seems to be defined as “anyone who disagrees with my vision of this country” rather than as someone who has actually been found guilty of betraying this country."

I ask you to consider this in terms of whether or not those very politicians hold views antithetical to those of "Liberty Justice for all." Remember that every national politician swears an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. If by their actions they forswear that allegiance, they are de facto guilty of treason. I agree with you that the formality of such a proclamation should be present prior to sentence being carried out and that hyperbole should be constrained until such a verdict is rendered.

"To come to a site that is supposed to value rational thought and reason and see calls for violent action is disturbing. Rand herself was adamantly opposed to the initiation of force except in self-defense. True self-defense. You cannot justify your call for the initiation of force by simply saying that someone else did it first."

Here I will point out that the entirety of self-defense relies upon the other party being the first to infringe upon one's rights. As soon as one acknowledges that first offense, however, the response then becomes de facto self-defense. One can argue the relative extent of the retaliation and its appropriateness, but one can not do that without acknowledging the original breach and its consequences.
As a second note, I would similarly point out that where such breaches are initiated by public actors (such as politicians) and have the effect to stifle creativity, one must similarly recognize that any such are anathema and most heinous to those who above all other things value the products of the mind. In very fact, to appear to justify such public breaches on this board is to call into question one's own Objectivist bona fides in a most direct manner.

"And so, I will be seeking another forum on which to truly have rational discussions."

If you wish to leave, that is your choice. But to imply or accuse those of us on this forum of not being rational is to expose the weakness in your own arguments' inability to stand up to questioning. In concordance with the Laws of Scientific Inquiry, ideas do not become theories until tested and re-tested against Reality. One should not shy away from such critique, but revel in the fact that it indicates a thorough vetting by intelligent minds eager to seek out the truth independent of agenda.

CM, as someone who has thrown out some harsh rhetoric, like 10,000 Patriots, or a Benevolent DICTATOR to RULE over the rulers...

I am not sure if you are including me or not. But allow me to comment... My posts were SUPPOSED to be thought provoking. A few steps BEYOND "the proverbial line"...

While it might be UNFAIR(maybe even "wrong") to kill a politician and eliminate his downline DNA and his spouse (those who benefited, for sure) for his wrong doing...

I love the back and forth. And one reason to plant these seeds is simple...
WHEN (and not IF) we get the chance to redo a constitution, it should be spelled out that for the same reasons that "Internal Affairs" exists to keep Cops honest... Something like that is needed, with punishments SO EXTREME as to "Scare Straight" any person who seeks power/office.

You can disagree. But human nature is what it is. There should be MASSIVE punishment for ALL of the crimes committed by our government Overlords and the Fauci types who LIED (and somehow redact their emails. So, we can see TRUMPS documents (an ex president), but we cannot see if Fauci was committing Fraud on the America People covering up the LAB origins of the Virus, and seeking to have people punished for bringing it up). And it deeply saddens me... That one set of protestors die in jail, and another set caused BILLIONS in damages, caused at least 5 deaths, broke SERIOUS laws, strong armed stores for donations to avoid getting looted... And we only here about Jan 6! Nobody looking into those other crimes.

I choose to be hear, to keep a pulse on the MORE REASONABLE Crowd.
I know what the crazy people think. It's everywhere.
at least here... We get memes, and FOOD FOR THOUGHT. Sometimes the kind that challenges us.

I've learned more about the efficiency differences between EVs and ICEs here than ALL other sources combined! Crazy! (And I still say we are 100yrs away from going to all EVs, and that's if we start install nuclear, and upgrading our grid). Good luck!

Regardless... A thought provoking post!

I agree with all of this. Here are few thoughts related to your points.

“She also said, As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.”
We do this with a nation-state with a monopoly on force, constitutional limitations, and democratic elections. I think, however, the very idea of a nation-state is becoming unnecessary. The word nation comes from the word native, but liberal democracy and respect for individual rights is an idea. I do not know future political structures should look like.

There was someone here with screen name ewv who said no political structure can maintain liberty if the population does not have a philosophy of liberty. I’ve come to believe that. I think Americans do have a strong philosophy of liberty compared to other places and times, but it’s far from the beacon of liberty I wish it were.

“Death to traitors” where the word traitor seems to be defined as “anyone who disagrees with my vision of this country”
We might expect his rhetoric if there had been a catastrophe, like a war with a vicious enemy that we’re at risk of losing. But at this time we’re having great prosperity. I think the motivation for the insanity is not disagreement. I think it’s a result of all the features of the new media, which give us more choice of content, which bring the NYT and conspiracy nonsense to the same screen, and which discourage people from getting together in real life. Not getting together in real life, causes loneliness, which causes people to bond around nonsense. I got this last idea from Senator Ben Sasse’s book Them, which goes into great detail.

“devolve into name calling”
My thought is the stupid name-calling has always been with us, but it didn’t get published, so you only heard if you spent time with children or childish people. I don’t know why they’re attracted to the works of Ayn Rand.