I have had several personal discussions with them. The stereotype does not apply to them.

The philosophy professor spends more time on Aristotle than anyone else.

The non-philosophy humanities professor has been selected as the best professor on campus by both the faculty and the students. I have learned something in every discussion I have had with her.

I will not vouch for every humanities professor on our campus, but we have several with whom I am very satisfied. A third faculty member holds an annual event where students are allowed to have free BBQ ... but only if they give up their right to free speech. The students learn quickly that Ben Franklin was correct in saying that those who would give up their liberties for security deserve neither.

Ideas are not a form of force and the necessity of discovering what is true on one's own does not preclude communication. Better ideas are spread by rational persuasion.

There is a lot you can appropriately explain about "how do you know" in scientific courses. Textbooks are notorious for asserting facts and principles with no clue about how they were discovered and validated, let alone explaining the nature of objective, contextual knowledge obtained by rational thought and procedures. The result is students permanently absorbing common fallacies of subjectivism and intrinsicism. The most that is provided, and then only occasionally, is throwing out a name and a crude summary of some experiment with no idea of what it took to figure out and do what was required, let alone how it validated a principle.

If you mean to the two humanities professors, you perhaps should have done less rather than encourage taking their courses. The proper "more" would be to first find out more about them and what they are teaching. Humanities professors are in general notoriously bad, especially in philosophy.

On second thought, I should NOT have done more. I acted correctly. They must come to their own conclusions on their own.

Other than what I told you, I ask students "What do they know?", and "How do they know it?", and that they will have to discover the proper philosophy for their lives on their own. After that, they are on their own. It would be inappropriate for me to go further than that. Much more could be construed as a subtle form of the use of force.

EWV has it right. Venezuela is a case in point. It has been getting progressively worse there for years, yet most of the people seem to be supporting Maduro and wanting more
of the same policies. An economic collapse there or here will not teach people that the countries policies were wrong. Constructive policies follow from the correct philosophic
premises. Too few people understand and are committed to the correct principles and all the wrong principles are being taught the world over.

Objectivist principles are held by way too few people and they are being spread much too slowly.

You have to be careful what you tell them and how you say it, especially outside the subjects you are teaching, in order to keep the focus on objectivity and the seriousness of the ideas so you are not misunderstood as a zealot for a personality cult. Explanation always requires taking account the context of knowledge and what someone is interested in. First make sure you understand it yourself. There is a lot that makes science more understandable and answers common confusions at a very basic level that would be very appropriate to lectures in engineering physics.

A cultural and economic collapse would not teach anything. Being immersed in disaster does not tell people what is right. Descending into panic and despair on a national or global scale would make it even harder to get people desperate to stay alive to focus and think in rational principles for a future, if there were any means of communication at all left to reach them with better ideas.

Ayn Rand intended Atlas Shrugged to show her readers what happens when the mind is withdrawn from human society, and to explain the ideas that are required, not to advocate for a collapse as a means to educate.

Better ideas will not happen as long as we believe in Santa Claus. The country will have to be brought to its knees as in AS for the ideals that you and I have to occur.

Point taken. I only invited them to an airing of AS1 (with Scott's permission), and recommended that they come to the Gulch web site. I should have done more.

Not coincidentally, three of the four Venezuelan students in the program came to see AS1.

There is a less direct accusation of capitalism as the cause of Venezuela's problems sited by Tucker Carlson on FoxNews. Here is that link:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/22...

Carlson accuses Rachel Maddow of MSNBC of blaming the Trump administration for some of its problems. Maddow's "argument" (if you can call it that) actually is that the Venezuelan oil company contributed $500,000 to the Trump inaugural and thereby deprived Venezuelan citizens of much needed help. Not quite blaming capitalism, but by innuendo, it amounts to much the same thing.

Stadler should have been encouraging students to take Akston's courses, i.e., Brenner should be encouraging his students to listen to Leonard Peikoff's recorded lectures on philosophy.

It was rammed through under "budget reconciliation" rules and Ryan confirmed long ago that it can be rescinded the same way. According to Mark Levin, as President of the Senate, VP Pence has the authority to make determinations on the rules.

Regulation? More like strangulation!

Precisely. Two days ago outside my university's dining hall, a couple of humanities professors including our relatively new philosophy professor, were convincing students to take their summer courses. As part of our conversation, it was perfectly in context for me to say, "Philosophy - Who Needs It? Everyone, of course." The entire conversation made me think of what the relationship between Drs. Stadler and Akston should have been like at The Patrick Henry University.

I have been an advocate for simple repeal of Obamacare and let the free market "replace" it. What I keep hearing is that takes 60 senate votes. Interesting to hear you say it would only take a simple majority

It did not take a super majority to pass Obamacare when the Democrats rammed it down our throats and it doesn't take a supermajority to repeal it. The Republicans don't want to repeal it. Trump isn't trying to repeal and it does not want to. He is openly advocating for the collectivism and denouncing and demonizing those conservatives who want repeal. Stopping Clinton does not make Trump right and does not make him "a sort of torchbearer for people who are tired of just working all day to support the socialist principles". It's more Republican open advocacy of 'me too but slower', conceding and re-enforcing the socialists' premises, further entrenching them on principle.

"Socialism would mean making human need, not profit, the basis for organising society."

Sounds like Trump and the Republicans arguing for saving Obamacare instead of repealing it.

When Obama was first threatening to take the bond money to refinance the Unions mismanaged retirement funds my accountant assured me that it was in-constitutional and against all contract law and could not be accomplished. I delayed taking my money out and received .10 cents on the dollar. The excuse given was that the bonds were high risk investments and since the government was now funding GM it was their discretion to give the money away. Lawyers for the investment companies fought it and it went to the Supreme Court very quickly where it was ruled that the government had the right to make this decision. Millions of people lost their investments and like me end up working in their old age to support themselves. There is no safe place to keep your money.

The desperate are acting.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-22...

I was trying to find the video I saw about this on Facebook, which first pointed out to me that in fact, Venezuela is a Socialist paradise and is being undermined by the evil Capitalists, but I could not find it. Too bad. It was really funny.

Trump will slow down the advances of socialism. He won't stop it and couldn't even if he tried. It takes super majority in senate and majority in house to repeal Obamacare. Democrats will not let pass any laws at all

term..................What you say has much merit.

term.............When productive people realize what Herb posted (see above) your post will start becoming reality....I hope. BT

"The result? We'd be working twice as hard and making half as much."

Herb................everyone should read that sentence over and over again. You have posted the essence..........thanks. BT