Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Nicky

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian) Not Specified
  • Relationship status No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

13474 profile views
  1. Plus, there are benefits to playing golf: you can see Sweden out the clubhouse window. You even see terrorist attacks the local population fails to notice.
  2. The good news is, this venture will probably fail well before you spend 8-10 years on it. Most startups do. And when they're run by people with little or no previous experience, the odds get even worse. So, rather than assuming a payday at the end of this, you should assume it will fail. Then, with that in mind, decide whether you still want to do it: would it still be worth it, if, instead of 8 digits, the only reward is the experience you will have gained from it? If the answer to that question is no, then I would advise against taking it on. P.S. It also seems like a bad idea to invest both your money (especially if the source of the money is a personal loan), and your time, into a startup. Contrary to popular belief, most rich people don't get rich by taking on wild risks and getting lucky. They do it by planning for failure (making sure failure doesn't ruin them), and being persistent through failure. That means you should make sure that, if this venture fails, you land in a position that isn't worse than your current one, and you can start again, using the experience you gained to do better with your next project.
  3. "Voluntary" is a fairly simple, straight forward concept. Is an issue that boils down to something that obvious really an issue worth discussing at length?
  4. Taxation is not theft, because you can choose a different thief. * *as long as you are willing to relinquish your property (or pay a 40% exit tax on all your assets), for the privilege of being allowed to leave.
  5. Spam and commercial links Spam (multiple copies in one area or the same communication in multiple areas) or advertising/commercial solicitation messages are prohibited, including links to commercial sites. In addition, do not use this forum to promote any other web site or solicit the members of this board without the approval of the moderators (this includes promoting another site via a signature). If a participant wishes to discuss a particular outside source, do not start a thread with just a link to the source -- please also discuss why forum members would be interested in viewing your link. Exception: a participant may advertise websites selling products of interest to members in the Marketplace forum. If in doubt, ask an administrator whether a post is appropriate. Them the rules. Doesn't say anything about the quality of the website you're promoting. All it says is DON'T.
  6. Because I support freedom of movement in the context of individual rights, not as a floating abstraction. Rights violators shouldn't move freely, just because freedom of movement is a right. If a country is a hostile dictatorship, and there is a movement among its citizenry aimed at hurting Americans', then it becomes a free country's job to restrict these people's movement. Ideally, this should be done on an individual basis, blacklisting suspected threats. And, in the case of US friendly countries like Saudi Arabia, that is a good option. There's no need for a ban (in fact a ban against Saudi Arabia would result in retaliation in kind, which would hurt American interests just as much as it does the Saudis). But, sometimes, it isn't enough to blacklist threats. There are countries that don't work with the US to clear visa applicants, that harbor anti-American militants. At that point, the broader approach to security is warranted: rather than blacklisting threats, only people who are white listed should be allowed in. This is a more effective approach to security, but it also causes more hardship to innocents...so the standard for justification, just like for war, should be high. Note: Trump's ban doesn't meet that standard. Donald Trump has announced his intention to ban all Muslims, during the campaign, and then he banned a few countries' nationals in an effort to placate people holding him to that promise...without any attempt to justify his actions, by proving any actual evidence of a threat from these specific countries. So the courts are right to throw out this particular order. But, in general, the President should have the right to issue similar orders...as long as they're better justified than this one.
  7. I try not to buy food I won't eat. But it's more of an esthetic preference than a moral one. It just seems like an ugly thing, to throw food into the trash or flush it down the toilet, as there are people starving in the world. And yes, I realize that, on a practical level, my actions don't change anything for people who are starving. That's not how economics works. I wouldn't actually be causing anyone to starve, if I bought a bunch of food every week and threw most of it out. But, just because something doesn't actually hurt people, doesn't mean it isn't ugly.
  8. Gus is 100% right, outlawing left turns would be an obvious abuse of government power.
  9. No. While someone does have the right to wish you dead, they don't have the right to do it using a service that belongs to someone who forbids such behavior. And Twitter does forbid that. You are right to take advantage of their policies, and spare yourself from being subjected to that kind of behavior. As for reporting this to the government (on the grounds of "harassment"), that's a more interesting question. Harassment should indeed be a crime (and it is...in most jurisdictions, it's referred to as "stalking"). But if it happens once, no, it is not "harassment/stalking". Harassment/stalking entails a series of credible threats aimed at terrorizing someone, not just a one time expression of ill will. I like the precedents set by the US judiciary, on what constitutes a threat. They go the farthest towards protecting free speech, out of any country. Check out cases involving the Black Panthers threatening Police, for instance, on wikipedia. They make for an interesting read. It is amazing how far you can take free speech rights in the US...and rightfully so, imo.
  10. The three main reasons why visa applications are rejected by the US are 1. the applicant has the wrong education level and/or profession 2. the applicant isn't rich enough 3. the applicant lost a lottery, or belongs to an ethnic group with too many applicants already Does the paper acknowledge and address that fact? Or is it written under the pretense that the motivating factor for restrictions on immigration is national security?
  11. No, when someone is lying, calling their lies "arbitrary", or "alternative facts", or anything else, won't do you any good. The only English word that accurately describes someone intentionally stating something that isn't true is "lie". By the way, the post you just replied to was originally deleted. Since you're a mod, would you mind explaining who and why deleted it, and who and why restored it? There was also a thread I started, to complain about the deletion, that was deleted. Would you mind explaining why THAT was deleted? Or are these truths I'm not entitled to? And if so, why?
  12. So, when you said that "Objectivists don't really have a handle on the other side", that was just a lie you made up. There is no actual reason for you to say that. You have exactly zero evidence for it.
  13. What didn't she understand about it? Or is that my job to figure out?
  14. Ok, here it is: NONE. There. It's summarized. There's NOTHING mystics have to say that I don't understand. Now it's your turn to contradict that by naming something.
  15. Can you give a few examples of things mystics are saying, that I haven't heard?