Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
  • °

    Objectivism Is The Everyman's Philosophy

    In the universe, what you see is what you get,

    figuring it out for yourself is the way to happiness,

    and each person's independence is respected by all

  • Rand's Philosophy in Her Own Words

    • "Metaphysics: Objective Reality"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed/Wishing won’t make it so." "The universe exists independent of consciousness"
    • "Epistemology: Reason" "You can’t eat your cake and have it, too." "Thinking is man’s only basic virtue"
    • "Ethics: Self-interest" "Man is an end in himself." "Man must act for his own rational self-interest" "The purpose of morality is to teach you[...] to enjoy yourself and live"
    • "Politics: Capitalism" "Give me liberty or give me death." "If life on earth is [a man's] purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being"
  • Objectivism Online Chat

    Reblogged:Thank You, Mr. Stossel

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    In a recent column, John Stossel, discusses "The Creepy Line," a conservative documentary about leftist bias in social media companies. Fortuitously, he has his own war story of social media "censorship," which should serve as a lesson to anyone concerned about this problem. Stossel's war story comes to the following successful conclusion:
    Contrast Stossel's response to what too many conservatives wrongly call "censorship" to the solution proposed by the film's writer, Peter Schweizer. Schweizer wants to address this problem by "[putting] them under the same shackles as other media companies."

    Stossel correctly notes that this would place innovation in social media into the hands of bureaucrats. But that's not all it would do.  Schweizer and others are wrong to use the term censorship -- something only governments can do -- to refer to one company's wrongheaded exercise of its property rights. By doing so, he is providing an excuse to deny those property rights and effectively impose actual censorship à la the old Fairness Doctrine on us all -- not to mention opening up the possibility of government bureaucrats serving as (actual) censors. This is a cure far worse than the disease.

    Many thanks to John Stossel for helping indicate the danger of conservative calls to regulate social media, and for demonstrating the proper way to respond: By publicly calling out such companies, while also standing up for free markets and freedom of speech.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step

    dream_weaver
    By dream_weaver,
    Yeast not only gives rise to bread, it gave rise to an answer to a question that has eluded evolutionary biologists.   "To understand why the world is full of plants and animals, including humans, we need to know how one-celled organisms made the switch to living as a group, as multicelled organisms," said Sam Scheiner, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Division of Environmental Biology. "This study is the first to experimentally observe that transition, providing a look at an event that took place hundreds of millions of years ago."

    Reblogged:How Many Things Are on Your Plate?

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Just before the mayhem of moving (with bonus mayhem, and not even counting the holidays) started -- I ran across an thought-provoking piece at Jean Moroney's site, Thinking Directions. Moroney reports on her decision to test, for a few weeks, a "Rule of Six" planning tactic expounded by Chet Holmes in The Ultimate Sales Machine. Moroney lists five findings from her test, and closes as follows:
    I'd forgotten about this post until yesterday, and am glad I flagged it for later review. As I experiment with a new project before the holidays, part of my goal is to figure out how much of the kind of work I can actually fit into a day. Six tasks may be too low or too high, depending on how I divide or measure the work. But the point that it is useful to list goals each day is well taken: It's really the only way to begin learning whether one's planning is realistic.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Reblogged:A Centrally-Planned Inferno

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    Image via Wikipedia. Writing at American Greatness, Edward Ring outlines how central planning by entrenched environmentalists set the stage for California's latest rash of deadly forest fires. The whole thing is worth a read, and correctly calls out the most consistent greens for wanting to "destroy industrial civilization." Here's a sample:
    Although Ring unfortunately does not bring up the possibility of privatizing our forests and national parks, this is an opportune time to consider this long-range solution to the problem of widespread forest fires. I will not do so in depth now, but a few questions should show why I think so. Would the owner of a forest, valuing trees for whatever purpose, depart from proven best practices for managing his forest? Would he do so, knowing that nearby property owners damaged by such a decision, could sue him? Almost certainly not, on both counts, but people do have free will. And this leads to a final question: Without top-down planning, what would the chances be of widespread, entrenched mismanagement? Nil.

    Although these questions indicate that privately-owned forests and parks would almost certainly have prevented the wide-scale forest mis-management that set California ablaze, we should remember that this is a benefit. The underlying reason we should privatize our forests is that running parks and forests is outside the proper scope of government in the first place.

    -- CAV Link to Original

Portal by DevFuse · Based on IP.Board Portal by IPS
×