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

13792 profile views
  1. Only businessmen left the country? Other specializations didn't?
  2. Well yeah, you're not gonna get 66% of voters to all agree with one platform. Only 24% voted for Macron in the first round. The rest are people with different political beliefs (from conservatives all the way to the far left) all voting against Le Pen.
  3. What's your impression of Macron, as a person? Is he honest, manipulative, arrogant, that sort of thing...(I can look up facts about French politics in English, but my French isn't good enough to make a character judgement, so it'd be interesting to know what your best guess is about him). Also, what are his views on foreign policy? Does he support Holland's pretty aggressive/interventionist style?
  4. As far as I know, reservation laws on the vast majority of reservations are very similar to regular local laws. The problem is that federal law prevents non tribe members from owning land on the reservation. So while you can transfer ownership, you can only transfer it within the confines of small tribes (the biggest are the Navajo, at 300,000, but after that it's 20,000 or less), you can't transfer it to outsiders. Which has all kinds of consequences: 1. property values are low 2. real estate can't be used as collateral in loans or mortgages (since the bank can't own it). 3. reservations can't attract investment the way other jurisdictions can (there are lots of countries that restrict land ownership by foreigners, and they end up having the same problem). So young tribe members wishing to build a life, who have trouble raising the money to buy a home (or start a business) react in two different ways: they either decide to depend on local government for help, or they leave the reservation. It's easy to guess which type of person does which, and what the effect is on the overall prosperity levels on reservations. This problem could be solved without any intrusive measures, land confiscations, or any further interference with the sovereignty of reservation governments. There's no need to cause any protests, or any violent reaction, by mandating anything. All that's needed is to remove the race restriction on the federal level. Leave the decision up to the reservation's government. If they want to open up to the world, and invite non-natives to buy land and join their community, fine. If they don't, that's fine as well. Let them be racist. It's their loss, and, eventually, their population would leave, and that would be that.
  5. Reservations don't provide refuge from federal law, only state and local laws. They're a separate jurisdiction from the states...but they have similar forms of government (mixed governments, part capitalist part socialist, same as every other jurisdiction in the US). So for any practical purposes, they only really provide refuge from taxation (hence the casinos). They're not different from regular local jurisdictions in any significant way. Reservations aren't socialist communes. They have private property rights. People who live under the jurisdiction of a reservation already own/rent the land they live on, same as people who live under state or city jurisdictions. Are you suggesting privately owned land should be confiscated, and re-distributed evenly? And sure, there is also public land within reservations. Lots of it. Some under the control of the local government, most under the control of the federal government, just like the public land the feds own outside reservations. I'm all for privatizing public lands, but "dividing it equally to all who live there"? Would you follow the same principle with land outside reservations? People who live in the countryside (especially in the western US) would suddenly become millionaires, while people who live in cities would get almost nothing. Wouldn't it make more sense to sell public lands on the open market, and use the money to pay off debts and then finance the legitimate functions of the government?
  6. The US federal government isn't operating under the assumption that taxation is voluntary.
  7. Whoever agreed with you that drunks and drug addicts should have their freedom restricted in any way is just as wrong as you are. PETA is a dishonest organization. I would never take any "study" they publish seriously. If you wish to cite scientific studies, please first make sure that they are done by and peer reviewed by scientists.
  8. I'm not convinced. Can you give a concrete example of how a big business or rich person "enormously" impacted your life?
  9. A psychiatrist is not a judge. A psychiatrist wouldn't just have to "conclude" that there's a danger, he would have to actually prove it. And, again: he couldn't prove it, because animal abuse is NOT proof that someone will hurt people. Let's take the most famous example: Michael Vick. He abused dogs in horrific ways, did it strictly for his own amusement. This was almost a decade ago, and he's yet to hurt any humans. There are many others, just like Michael Vick: proven animal abusers, who have never been "isolated" (they sometimes serve short prison sentences, but they serve them in general population, they're not isolated), and yet, have never hurt any humans. Isn't that proof that animal abuse doesn't necessarily lead to violence against people?
  10. No, you would still have to prove that they're going to hurt people. Which you obviously can't, because animal abuse isn't proof that someone is a danger to humans. There was a study by Prof. Frank Ascione at the University of Denver and Prof. Arnold Arluke at Northeastern University, of 1433 children ages 6 to 12, who have been physically abused, that found that 60% had abused animals. There are also studies that suggest that up to 5% of all American children have abused animals. I would think it's worse worldwide (since child abuse numbers are worse). So, on a world wide scale, we are talking about tens of millions of such children. Are you saying that it's justified to "isolate" all of them, because one in a million will turn into serial killers?
  11. If you're being honest about your motives, sure you could. You could prove it, and establish some credibility, by answering what I asked you a few days ago: who are you, what political/religious organizations are you associated with, how did you become interested in Mr. Barney, etc.? Because right now, you have the credibility of an anonymous accuser with a hidden grudge: in other words, none whatsoever. I (and I'm sure anyone else with half a brain) would never let an anonymous smear arriving through the Internet cause me to question my friends' or business associates' honesty or character.
  12. Hey, HandyHandle. You seem to be engaged in a campaign against a fellow Objectivist...which is fine, you have the right to do that. But, at the same time, he has the right to know who's attacking him. So would you mind posting your real name, as well as any kind of affiliation you have with the AR Institute, or any other Oist or political/religious organizations? If what you're saying about your interest in Carl Barney (that it's not anything personal, you're merely interested in protecting the image of the Oist movement) is true, then telling everyone who you are will help lend credibility to what you're saying. It proves that you are willing to stand behind it, and stake your reputation on it, you're not just engaging in an anonymous smear campaign.
  13. Atlas Shrugged isn't just about Capitalism, it's about a lot more. You can't just take everything in the novel and assume it's a political statement. Most of it isn't. That's a pretty childish thing to say. What freed millions from tedious housework isn't the invention of "ingenious" household items (frankly, none of that stuff is particularly ingenious, and it's stuff that's been in use in various cultures in the past), it's the improvements in productivity that allowed the mass manufacturing of consumer goods, as well as large scale research in improving them. And it WAS the great minds of industry and business who created that kind of innovation, not some guy who came up with the design for the disposable diaper.
  14. I know. Scientologists are yet to start any holy wars, burn anyone at the stake, or plunge humanity into the Dark Ages. As far as I know, they're also yet to aid and protect an organized syndicate of pedophiles operating in their midst. So lots and lots of differences. In fact the only thing they seem to have in common is taking money off of unsuspecting rubes, with stories of aliens, immortal ghosts, and a magical zombie that does unimpressive party tricks (I guess he was okay for his time, but, these days, Penn and Teller would make him look like an amateur). That last part they're very similar in.
  15. He has four years to pass his own version of socialized healthcare. I suspect he's going to be able to. The current version is pretty unpopular.