About

“If America drags on in her present state for a few more generations (which is unlikely), dictatorship will become possible. A sense of life is not a permanent endowment. The characteristically American one is being eroded daily all around us. Large numbers of Americans have lost it (or have never developed it) and are collapsing to the psychological level of Europe’s worst rabble….

“We cannot fight against collectivism, unless we fight against its moral base: altruism. We cannot fight against altruism, unless we fight against its epistemological base: irrationalism. We cannot fight against anything, unless we fight for something — and what we must fight for is the supremacy of reason, and a view of man as a rational being.”

–Ayn Rand, in her 1971 essay, “Don’t Let It Go,” in Philosophy: Who Needs It (The Ayn Rand Library Vol. 1)

9 responses to “About

  1. Ian

    You’re writing again! I just checked in on your blog after consoling a few terrified 1Ls… Merry Christmas!
    Ian

  2. Dan Atkinson

    Is this the site created by Amy Peikoff??? If so, I’m glad!

  3. Hi Amy, your blog/podcast is like a breath of fresh air in a vacuum full of pollution. Don’t let it go…unheard!

  4. kevin mcgeeney

    A working definition of capitalism is hard to come by, what a lot of people point to these days is not any capitalism I know. To keep it short I am comfortable with the following “to lead your life beholden to nobody and have nobody beholden to you”. I believe this is capitalism.
    Under this definition people and companies should neutralise externalities they impose on others. If I run a smelting business and mercury is a byproduct I expect to have to dispose of it in such a fashion that has no negative effect on others. I don’t expect to be allowed pump it into a local river.
    I can understand much of the opposition to ‘Cap n trade’ emission systems. However, what would be a better way of preventing freeloaders/looters from polluting an environment? If you disagree about the science on CO2 emissions, then answer in the context of other less controversial emissions e.g. sulphur.

    • Doug Blakely

      If someone is actually harmed by emissions they have an obligation to demonstrate the harm in real, verifiable evidence. Most living creatures and practically every activity of man emits Carbon Dioxide. These “scientists” who claim harm from these emissions are no exception. Instead they offer wild predictions of doom, citing “consensus” in their community as the proof. Meanwhile, their computer models cannot reliably predict what has already happened, and when they are asked for the measurement data, they refuse to turn it over.

  5. Hammy

    Really love your writting.
    cheers from Brazil
    -

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s