Your interview was interesting, but the show-stealer was your female caller, the beginner to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. She was a hoot! And you did a great job talking to her!

I would add that, while this is a serious defect, in the context it is an recommending virtue since the other 3 contenders are not willing to protect individual rights to any extent whatsoever.

That explains Ron Paul. He would not have been able to achieve the popularity he has for the good (and remarkably so) aspects of his policies if it were not for his inconsistencies and rationalizations that twist things to appeal to pervasive popular errors and prejudices.

The moral question is different: If he meant that the woman literally does not have the moral right to say no upon entering the room, then I disagree. But I do not think that this is what Dr. Peikoff meant. If at any point a woman wants the man to stop and allow her to leave, and she communicates this clearly — like by screaming “No! I really mean it: Stop!” while struggling frantically to escape and get out of the room — and the man continues, he is initiating force against her and thereby violating her rights. But one can only act based on what one actually knows. The woman does need to be clear and she needs to *get out of the room* if she changes her mind about sleeping with him. If she feels uncomfortable but does not say anything and does not try to leave, that is not sufficient to clearly communicate her intent, and the man might take it as some kind of flirtatious game. How could he know what she wants if she doesn’t communicate it? So maybe her continued presence in the room, if voluntary, is a communication of consent. If I were in a room with a man I did not want to sleep with and he kept making advances, I would leave. I think it comes down to a question of how a man can know that a woman has or has not consented to sleeping with him.

I will be interested to hear Dr. Peikoff’s further discussion of this issue.

However, I think one would have to be very careful about this sort of application of an agreement; as in, how clear was it, was it explicit, did she give all indications that this is what she wanted (took off her clothes, took on a sexual pose, etc.). I’d still back down if she said no, unless we had some sort of explicit contract (which would be bizarre in this context anyhow); however, I do think it is the prerogative of a man to press the issue (without force) to get her to submit to sex. But I do think the “rape scene” in The Fountainhead can be very misleading. Personally, I can’t tell if a woman wants to have sex with me simply by looking at her standing in front of me, so maybe it is a matter of context of knowledge of the opposite sex

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/doug-casey-morality-money

“Besides, crime – real crime, taking from or harming others, not law-breaking, which is an entirely different thing – is for the lazy, short-sighted, and incompetent. In point of fact, I believe crime doesn’t pay, notwithstanding the fact that Jon Corzine of MF Global is still at large. Criminals are self-destructive. It’s a subject I’m writing an essay about – evil, stupidity, sociopaths, and the fate of America – for this month’s Casey Report.”

Leave it to a Brit to provide the perfect socialist foil 30 years ago.

I was so excited that you guys talked about the honour killing trial. I live in Ontario and my brother is a PhD student at the University where the killing and trial took place. So this hit close to home!

I heard the judge give the statement on the radio and I bristled with excitement to hear such moral clarity. It was just awesome.

I was listening to some local talk-radio in which a leftist and rightist share the air time on a show called “friendly-fire”. Both were in agreement that this was either a cultural or a religious phenomenon, particular to Muslims. The phones were full as Muslim after Muslim phoned in insisting that Islam is a religion of Peace, and that when a Canadian or other culture etc. murders it doesn’t mean it’s the culture or the religion. It was hilarious to hear these people completely drop logic and fail to admit that their culture or religion promotes the barbarity. Sad really. It was great to hear the hosts fire back to these guys and point out the facts: this is a Muslim problem. Of course, the rightist insisted that it’s not “the religion,” but he didn’t dwell on that part too much. Typical for the conservative though: defending religion.

It was great to hear you on the Just Right radio program with Robert and Bob. Great guys they are. I was a candidate for the Freedom Party. Why don’t you guys have such a thing as the Freedom Party in the US?

It’s time for you Americans to put your money where your mouth is. Incessant complaining about the Republicans when nobody seems to want to offer a concrete political alternative.

So what if you get a couple percent of the popular vote. You guys need to start establishing the infrastructure for a new political alternative. By the time everything starts to collapse, you need to have an alternative party out there. Republicans are hopeless. Completely hopeless.

Bosch-Peikoff for president/vice-president. Sorry Amy, you aren’t enough of a Butch to be a president. Bosch has a deep, sexy voice, great for that masculine leadership role. OK, so I have a man-crush on Bosch. No Homo.

Andrew

In 1987 I supported Alexander Haig in The Republican primaries. I saw him speak at the Polo Club in Boca Raton, FL. Before his speech he came around to each table to introduce himself. When he came to our table I offered him a leaflet from The Intellectual Activist (an Objectivist magazine) with an article by Peter Schwartz called The Double Zero Fallacy. He saw the name Intellectual Activist and must have thought that it was some kind of radical liberal rag because he reacted negatively with the question “What is that?” I told him, “It is an intellectual argument in favor of arming America to the teeth with all kinds of weapons including nuclear weapons.” He literally grabbed it out of my hand and stuffed it into his coat pocket. A few weeks later on November 20th, 1987 he gave a speech in the National Press Building to the World Affairs Council in Washington D.C. The link to the video is listed below. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/3639-1

David Rose on the Moral Foundations of Economic Behavior
Russ Roberts and David Rose
http://files.libertyfund.org/econtalk/y2012/RoseDmoral.mp3

Right now, the time and convenience of jurors are treated with an indifference bordering on contempt. If jurors were paid market wages (whatever it would take to secure enough volunteers), that would have to change.

Such a policy might also offer advantages in the administration of justice, for example, jurors who had seen “lawyer tricks” over and over again, instead of once every several years, might be less susceptible to them.

In such a case, “the devil is in the details,” and – for one example – steps would have to be taken to ensure that the government didn’t pay these lucrative wages only to those eager to render “guilty” verdicts.

http://newmedia.ufm.edu/lewisaynrandsideas

The part about “power” and “responsibility” starts at about 1:16:00.