When a government censors a citizens ideas then one gets into the arena of immorality as it violates the 1st amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Once again note the term ‘Congress’ shall make no law.

Nothing to do with a private indivuals choice.

A government is of the people.

An private individual offerring a public forum may do what ever is in his/her best interest and as such is not abrogating the right of the other poster to post the opinion anywhere else.

The removal of the post in this context is amoral not immoral.

Robert H. Weinstein

I always try this analogy to explain what is actually going on;

Much like some stores limit themselves to particular products, so do some forums limit themselves in the scope of discussion. Thus, if you go to a hardware store expecting to buy shoes, it’s not ‘censorship’ for the store owner to refuse to sell you shoes. He’s not trying to suppress shoes, he’s not trying to deny you the right to wear shoes, he just doesn’t sell them himself. And just as on the forum, he may even direct you to a shoe store (which some people will no doubt go to and try to buy a hammer.) Along the same lines, motorcycle clubs are not censoring individuals by refusing to allow them into the club because they drive a Honda Civic. It’s a MOTORCYCLE club.

These forums typically state their purpose and focus succinctly in their forum rules. There are no surprises here, and for those folks that go in and either fail to read those rules, or read them and intentionally ignore them, we typically point them back in that direction with a reminder.

The other thing is, participation on our forum does not limit people from participating on other forums. Many of our members participate on other sites that vary in scope and purpose. With the internet being as big as it is, it simply IMPOSSIBLE for one site owner to censor any individual from talking about or expressing their views. Individuals who want to explore issues that are not allowed on one website can FREELY go to another website with a different focus and air those issues out there.

The choice is quite simple; if you don’t mind adhering to the rules of a particular site or organization, you can join and participate. If you don’t like the rules, no one is forcing you to participate. But it is false and a complete waste of time to make false assertions of censorship when you simply assume the motivation behind the clearly stated rules of participation. I’ve found that people’s gripes with Objectivism (or Objectivists) tends to bias their assumptions toward the negative. A person with a more objective mindset would at least entertain other possible reasons.

Many I have had discussions with do not understand that Objectivism is like math, you don’t sit there and argue that 2 + 2 = 5 and this is the position we view many of those opposed to it and all the logical fallacies that ensue and attacks on Rand that honestly have no more to do with Objectivism then Einstein being an axe murderer would change the fact that e=mc2 is now false because of it. The Reason many seek to undermine Rand is because she has indeed cracked the code and come up with software for the human mind that is indeed in sink with reality itself, not in conflict with reality or in contradiction with reality, unlike all religions and mysticism that must undermine mans reason and claim that nothing is knowable, rand gives the user the tools to assess reality and now reality as it is and to think rational and logically, build values and think in terms of values, understanding that feelings do not create reality, nor are they a currency that can be traded in terms of values.

So your attempt to find flaws with objectivist’s, again has nothing to do with Rands discovery, the reason you get attacked for your provocation is that many of us see right through you, and know that you are indeed a waste of time and are interfering with the ability of many to see, understand and employ the values that she brings.

James George

1. You said it yourself, you had many mistakes which were rightly taken apart. That is the way that logic works.

2. Those that practice objectivism are not “collectivists”. Collectivists are those that “live to serve others or expect others to serve them”. Individualist is one that uses their independent mind to process information using logic. A collection of individuals such as in a democracy is not ‘collectivism’, but invidualism as each uses their own mind and practices liberty to vote.

3.No Rand supporter tries to ’silence’ the opposition. The whole principle of individualism in a nation is everyone has a right to their opinion, BUT there is NO right to have your opinion on “XYZ’s private blog or facility”. You can NOT wear “whatever you like on a private mall” , IF it violates the mall’s policy. FREE SPEECH is a right that exists on PUBLIC PROPERTY. That is US law.

4.One must never keep an “open mind”, but instead keep an “active mind”. Open mind concept means accepting “communism” possibly. But there is no “possibly” neither in theory nor in practice. There is an “active mind” that CAN evaluate ALL information that one chooses, and REJECT falsity.

5. Objectivism is a complete philosophy, not as some person states incorrect a “preamble to a philosophy”. Philosophy is a science that integrates the facts of reality, particularly the specialist subjects out there using clear ‘abstract principles’ to apply to the concrete facts of reality. That is exactly what Objectivism does: as a philosophy.

6.When objectivists get together in a forum to discuss Ayn Rand, and importantly to apply her concepts to the concrete facts of modern reality, it is not “following” Rand [who is dead], but using leadership:independent individualistic mind to reach conclusions.

7. Ayn Rand’s marital choices were not immoral. She was not dishonest with anyone, and also made sure the spouses of her lover/s knew. Similarly HUGH HEFNER is not dishonest in practicing a love triangle [or more].

Who said that a man and woman in a marriage can not “swing”? Religion? Yes! To hell with that mystic nonsense that has brought about more death and destruction including outright Catholic genocide than most things in history.