Probably futile, but here we go—at least you agree with the part where I said, “I really shouldn’t do this” though probably not for the same reason.
As to who is or is not an “O”bjectivist, and specifically as to whether I am; I guess time will tell. I have many disagreements with Miss Rand, many of which I will get around to arguing about. I am, however, a little “o” objectivist; reality is the final arbiter. Also, and in the same vein, I am a little p progressive (advocate for progress towards civility). If I were to call my philosophy anything it would be Prometheism, because as Ayn said, “realism” was already taken by the enemy. But at least I know exactly where my differences with Objectivism are.
As an example, consider the following metaphysical subject.
What is the nature of thingness? Objectivism/Ayn has a great deal to say about what the nature of this thing is, vs., what that thing is, (identity) but nothing on the nature of thingness qua thingness (seems to be alright with leaving that to science). Now it seems to me that before you can Identify what a thing is, you need to decide what you mean by thing.
A thing is that which tends to conserve its constituency to itself (temporally). A thing is, how/ in what manner it conserves its constituency. This holds true from the smallest Particle to the universe as a whole (see physics) . It holds true for philosophies (see the hierarchy). It holds true for concepts in there method of reification (see the opening to I.O.E.in my fist post). It holds true for everything, the concrete, and the abstract. To be anything, is to be made up of something, and what that thing is will be determined by how those somethings are arranged, be they particles, strings, precepts, units, citizens. Quite literally objective if you ask me.
You discuss an impression of Beck, in your second point, as being dishonest at a deep level (would do anything to further his employer's goals) - but that is put out there as an unsupported assertion. I'm not seeing any of the facts of reality that would support that. Actually I said His/his employers’ goals, but o.k. one example of his hypocrisy then on to something that is actually interesting. Now, without having to actually look at any of his work( ick), but knowing that he just wouldn’t be able to help himself—what was Glens’ position on criticizing the president while he was abroad during the Bush administration? And during the Oboma administration? You can go back and look at his shows during the periods when the president has been abroad if you like (I personally have no desire to do so) but I would bet lots on him slamming Oboma while he was away receiving a Nobel prize. There is a reason why you don’t do that--because it hurt the nation, and that’s what I mean about throwing stones and not caring who they hit. Nuf said?
From Webster’s new Twentieth Century Dictionary unabridged 1942 (my favorite of the ones I own as it comes from a time before the “usage creates meaning” school gained primacy [the extreme nominalist position])—Progressive—2. improving: aiding or inclined to aid progress; working for or endeavoring to secure advancement. Now you might ask-- the advancement of what? Progressionist 1. One who maintains the doctrine that society is in a state of progress toward perfection, and that it will ultimately attain to it. (Progress from savagery toward civility). What the hell, lets do one more. Liberal, n. 1. One who advocates greater freedom of thought or action. Boy, I can sure see how that would be at odds with Objectivism. Of coarse all of this is in little p’s and l’s, but that is what I mean when I use the words, and I am proud that those are my stances. Words have meanings, and just because some fools in the past claimed to be “liberals” or “progressive” doesn’t give them ownership of the word, nor do they become it’s definition or defining factor.
What do conservatives conserve?