And I never made the statement you claim – because that’s not my view.

Meaning, you believe the Good is inherent in certain things regardless of their context.

You provided the definition, gave an example, and showed the inherent ethical flaw. You agree with Ayn Rand.

Let’s start with your conclusion – that because ‘the community’ exists as a conceptual entity as opposed to a literal thing that no concept can be formed from it.

Do you really mean that?

If so…well, its not Objectivist epistemology. What you describe is instrinsicism – but I don’t blam you because you’re starting from Rand’s load of hogwash.

Is there such a thing as individual people? Yes, of course – that’s not a brilliant observation on her part. We know that.

Is there such a thing as a common good – something that benefits all or most people? Again – this is obvious.

Rand seems to be jumping to ‘in a conflict between the common good and what’s good for any individual, you must side with the individual’ – since the group is only a collection of individuals. Is that your understanding?

I know this is in vein, but what the heck…

In other words, Lee, she doesn’t say what you claim she says. She acknowledges the literal interpretation of the common good as the sum of a good shared by those involved. However, it poses an ethical conundrum, as you demonstrated with your forced plumbing example, when the common good stands apart from the individual. When starting with what’s best, beneficial, or good for the community, society, the group, or the tribe, then you’re forever at the mercy of whatever the majority deems to be “the good.” Furthermore, it’s because there is no such entity as “the community,” that no such concept can be formed as the “common good.”

I’ll take you at your word – but at age 43, I’ve seen the consequences – outgrowing Objectivism has been nothing but positive. Getting rid of the negative consequences only will make the world better.

And Jeff – I didn’t misrepresent a thing. I just said what 99% of people know as soon as they look into – it’s a wacky cult whose adherents are too intellectually immature to realize it. Objectivists are the object of ridicule and scorn….

As I posted in comments below Lee’s article and on my blog, the important thing is to let the public see that Lee is misrepresenting Objectivism. If given the right direction, they will see the truth on their own.

(Sorry for the split post.)

And a lot of you will eventually outgrow her, too…

I’m here on unfriendly ground – can’t win one way or another…

I’m sure Jim is figuring out new excuses to not actually discuss ideas – let’s see what the coward comes up with..

But now that he actually has exited the field, you’re going off on him?

Yeah, that’s impressive.

You’re pretty arrogant, even for an Objectivist.

I guess I misread your last posts – I thought you were exiting the field so I didn’t see a reason to address your comments.

But – seriously, WTF are you even talking about? Your whole Syndrome post – cute widdle cartoon references and all – was nothing but an ad hominem. And a factually baseless one, which you never even had the testicular fortitude to admit being wrong about….or to even look into.

As I said somewhere, the Ayn Rand cult you’re a clear member of operates on several levels. I asked you to debate ideas, Jim – and you refused..

So you’re the last person in the world to talk about credibility. You were wrong about me, didn’t back down when it was pointed out, and refused to talk about ideas when I brought it up.

And you wouldn’t even do it HERE on your home turf with nothing but other cultists to cheer you on.

You’re fear filled, Jim. A big bully in front of your friends and you claim victory when you backed out of the discussion. The other Kool Aid drinkers will cheer you on here but you know the truth – that when I asked you to discuss idea, you got scared.

What I have done here, and others have done, is not to challenge your “inside knowledge” about any organization or group (though I certainly did, and still do, question it), but to destroy your attempt to parlay that into “authority” status on Ayn Rand and her ideas.

Repeated for emphasis, but I must correct one error I made.

I did not destroy Lee Stranahan’s credibility on Objectivist ideas. I just gave him the rope to do it himself.

And boy has he done it.

Has anyone noticed that since I put the final nail in his intellectual coffin, he’s stopped addressing me at all? Instead, he’s going on about his new god, the “Common Good” (not arguing for it, just posting what it *means* as if that were an argument … not unlike the way that theists posit the commonly understood definition of the term “God” as though that were an argument) — and focussing on Ayn Rand’s purported failures as a person?

That is the very definition of ad hominem right there.

I’m surprised that he hasn’t told stories about all the members of the “inner circle” who were in dread fear that Ayn Rand would find out that they liked dogs, because of course she was a cat person.

After all, there were no puppies in Atlas Shrugged.

Lee Stranahan: You have got nothing. I suggest that you now go and Google for yourself the first rule of holes.

My job is complete. It was far easier than I expected. I’m going to ensure that this comment thread is backed up, and the backups are backed up, because if anyone anywhere cites Lee Stranahan as if he were credible, I will point them here.

A big shout out goes to Paul Hsieh for the linkage and his ongoing efforts, and the commenters here who added to Stranahan’s rope pile — and last but not least, Mr. Syndrome himself, Lee Stranahan, for putting on the most bizarre intellectual Danny Deever dance I’ve ever seen.

No points for originality, though.

I read your Huffington Post article and I can find nothing right about it. Consider this, we are spending 5 trillion dollars a year on the welfare state (state, local and federal taxes) and regulations on industries are greater than at any point in American history. How is that Laissez Faire capitalism?

Just that one point, how do you answer it?

They are cliches to most of the people who use them – random phrases they throw out as cult jargon, instead if actual independent thought.

Joe – that Rand quote is goobledygook.

Are those just cliche’s to you?

I have seen you before, btw, because my brother, David, attended the Second Renaissance School as well.

Thanks for responding to this. I should’ve asked to give the context and more specifically site the quote.

Ayn Rand addressed this specifically in “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.”

She says, ‘“The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: The sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of the individual men and how does one determine it?’

Shall I Google “the good” now?

The trick of objectivism qua cult is that it’s a mix of Rand’s fiction and non-fiction plus a strong dose of her personality and personal style. In other words, it’s not just a set of ideas that exists without that context.

And it’s Rand’s style – brash, unapologetic – that’s big as big an influence as her ideas for many.

So in short piece, I did what I set to do – lay out some groundwork . I figured I might expand on that in the future and I might.

You’re dense. I said nothing about government piping, or running piping under your property (even though the verticle limits of property rights is an issue all by itself).

What I said was that if I have a pipeline running from my house to the sewage treatment plant, and it happens to run right by your house, it would be in my interest to connect your house to my pipeline, even at my own expense, if you’re not able to connect to it yourself. It would be of far greater value to me to have your property in a sanitary condition – both for it’s affect of my ability to enjoy my property unmolested as well as for it’s affect on your quality of life. A healthy, friendly neighbor is virtually always a good thing to have.