After checking Stephan's comments and associated links, I do believe he has provided excellent resources which review the book series in words I have trouble putting down on paper, or in ASCII form for that matter. Which kind of reminds me of my shortcomings that this blog can perhaps help me in overcoming: the difficulty I have in explaing my ethics/behaviours and actions to others in terms they understand, without diverting and sidetracking into minor points more than necessary to explain the concepts which Austrians and even Randians would consider to be perfectly simple.
It often feels like my conversations are running around in circles, without the listener making those critical connections to carry on to the logical conclusions I wish to make known, which are often the meat of the discussion. Now you can begin to understand why this is a frustrating experience.
You want a perfect example? Attempt to explain why natural, non-government-sponsored monopolies are signs of a healthy economy to a friend or coworker, and why the FTC's actions are criminal,immoral and reprehensible.
Do any others have this same problem, or do you perhaps employ simple, and logical shortcuts during serious discussion? Do you at some time feel your conversation isn't working out so you throw in the towel, regardless of your still unexplained actions and behaviour? Or are you simply reticent, and allow people to think and believe what they want about your ethics and behaviours?
If I seem apprehensive, I'm not. In fact most of the time I couldn't care less whether the person I spoke to is even somewhat convinced. It is frustrating because I think it has to do with my shortcomings of not being a persuasive speaker. If you have any tips on how to become a better one, please comment.
As an aside, and perhaps worthy of an additional blog entry was a socialist's POV. Even if they are intelligent enough to realize that their philosophy and praxeology are of incoherent fashion and intellectually dishonest, at least they have the company and the comfort of being in the camp of other Che Guevara t-shirt wearers who understand their base motives and can commiserate amongst.
To be fair however, I understand that Randians/Randroids have their designer collection of John Galt and Taggart Transcontinental merchandise to wear or decorate their surroundings with, so that they feel that they socially fit-in and still make a statement about society. Which I find highly amusing considering that Objectivist philosophy revolves around the ego, and here they seek the comfort of not being a social misfit.