Some of my best friends are communists
What makes a "good" person or a "bad" person is (no surprise) personal: within the individual. That is usually hidden from external view and judged only by actions and words in the world. That judgment is also personal: it depends on the person making it.
Consider John D. Rockefeller. Most people who care to know anything about him dislike him. Objectivists admire him, but dislike his having been a church-going Baptist. Would Rockefeller have been a better person as an atheist? You only have to look at Edison to think more than twice about that question.
That is not to say that "one hand washes the other." I believe that the final balance is, indeed, a balance, of admirable qualities versus failures.
What is the essential characteristic?
A productive person will admire the productivity of others. Consider Thomas Edison, Sandra Lerner (Cisco Systems), or Martha Stewart. Edison was not a nice guy, but that is not the essential judgment. None of them were or are paragons of Objectivist virtues - some producers seem to have had no special virtues outside of their work. Consider how we wring our hands over Bill Gates. Yet, Microsoft cannot be denied. I admire
George Soros for his success as a trader. Haters take a different view.
You can find producers and haters in any population, just like short and tall people, no matter how short or tall the group. It is an assumption in social science that however defined, differences _within_ groups are greater than differences _across_ groups. Thus, I have had many friends who were political progressives and born-again Christians, while I have suffer through many libertarian or Objectivist meetings.
Consider John D. Rockefeller. Most people who care to know anything about him dislike him. Objectivists admire him, but dislike his having been a church-going Baptist. Would Rockefeller have been a better person as an atheist? You only have to look at Edison to think more than twice about that question.
That is not to say that "one hand washes the other." I believe that the final balance is, indeed, a balance, of admirable qualities versus failures.
What is the essential characteristic?
A productive person will admire the productivity of others. Consider Thomas Edison, Sandra Lerner (Cisco Systems), or Martha Stewart. Edison was not a nice guy, but that is not the essential judgment. None of them were or are paragons of Objectivist virtues - some producers seem to have had no special virtues outside of their work. Consider how we wring our hands over Bill Gates. Yet, Microsoft cannot be denied. I admire
George Soros for his success as a trader. Haters take a different view.
You can find producers and haters in any population, just like short and tall people, no matter how short or tall the group. It is an assumption in social science that however defined, differences _within_ groups are greater than differences _across_ groups. Thus, I have had many friends who were political progressives and born-again Christians, while I have suffer through many libertarian or Objectivist meetings.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 11.
But still, from the moment they agree with welfare policies and the like, I can't really forgive them 100%. They may be good people, but they're siding with the ones who want to take my freedoms away...
It's really a balance of admirable qualities versus failures, like Mike said. I may not agree with Christians regarding their mystical beliefs, but since they do not want to push their views on everyone else legally, that's not a problem for me to have a friendship with them (well, maybe not the perfect friendship, but a good friendship anyway. Like a vegan having a steak-loving friend). Being friends with a communist is quite the opposite though... I really can't shake this feeling that they are my enemies, as they are making my own life harder.
If someone does evil because he doesn't know he's actually wrong, should this person be forgiven?
You would not be allowed in the real one if it existed, I suppose. Maybe you guys just like to bash Obama? That's OK, I guess...
I couldn't really make a choice like that. I would not give any of these aspects of my life up!
Dying without money, but with loved ones, would probably mean I didn't choose my friendships very well. Who would love a guy with no career or purpose in life? I don't want pity! This reminds me of that poor girl who died in Atlas Shrugged.
Money is just the result of your work, your purpose, right?
Dying with money, but no loved ones? I'm not sure, but I suppose that, if you're really great at something, there will be people who will want to be by your side, and respect you, if you look for them in the right places.
Am I missing something?