EC

I'm left handed and am wondering if maybe the percentage of lefties among Objectivists is higher than among the general population since left-handed people use the right brain more, etc. For this to be at all accurate you should answer (if you choose to) obviously whether you are left or right handed, I don't want this poll to be artifically biased towards one choice or the other.

I was going to say the same thing, but wasn't 100% sure if it was true or not.

What about Aristotle's Law of Identity and logic? What about the Greeks and Romans attempts at a republic? Or the Pythagorean theorem? Or, eureka! Archemides Principal? Or...I could go on. None of this is a value to you? I know it is to me.

You can use my three decent ones or some form of them in the $30 contest if you want GC. I might as well give it a try.

What positive thing did the pope do though, all I ever saw him doing was push altruistic self-sacrifice on hundreds of millions of reality-evading people. Is mass delution(sp?) a positive thing? He actually supposedly liked that he has been suffering and his subordinates bring that fact up as if it is a virtue. That sickens me. But I will not talk down about a man who has just died.

What used to really annoy me is that every other year the teachers would tell us to go home and tell our parents to vote for a millage increase or they would go on strike or shut down the school or something. There reasoning was that no matter how much money they were underpaid and deserved an X percentage increase every year because according to them that's what "everybody else" gets. When I was really young, I fell for it and when I would tell my Dad he would get p*ssed off. As I got older I started to see through their scam and see how immoral it was. Then I started hoping they would go on strike, and maybe lose all their jobs in the process, which would never happen in Michigan being the bastion of socialism and unions the Detroit Metro area is. But a kid could wish, and I did.

Alright, I won a discussion!

The purpose in this case isn't to destroy the mind and stop rational thought, but to improve it, i.e., to make the person more rational not less.

Yeah I agree, but in this thread she properly criticizes the pope for the same things she defended Carter on in another thread. In other words, I was pointing out that she was being inconsistent. These threads aren't mutually inconsistent with each one in a vacuum on it's own. A persons words in one thread should be consistent in another, if there is apparent contradictions then they should be pointed out. Sometimes it's easier for another person to notice inconsistent coments than the person themself.

Uh, may the Force be with you, and stuff.

Why do you say this about him, but deny the exact same attributes and actions in Jimmy Carter? Both are based on following altruistic principals.

You evaded the question or possibly I didn't state it clearly, what could these private security forces do to enforce the contract except maybe a stern warning which essentially means nothing. They couldn't imprison you, they can't have your assets seized or sanction you in any way. They would have no power to enforce there contract whatsoever without the power of government. I can guarantee if a group of private security guards barged into my house in an attempt to collect money on a contract that they alledged I defaulted on by putting a gun to my head they would get nothing from me accept maybe my middle finger and that gun shoved up where the sun don't shine while I kicked them out into the street. I nor do I think most people have any fear that a security guard is actually going to shoot them anyway. See what I mean they could not have any possible means of enforcement without backing by a legitimate government.

Yes, but their the delinquents that chose to stay in school rather than drop out, and they were in general more interesting people than the sheep who mostly attend normal schools. And if you don't really care what anyone you are "surrounded by" thinks about you and you don't let influence you in a negative way, like in my case, the advantages are immense. I flew through all those classes as far and away the best student in the school at my own paces, using essentially my own rules, and skipping class half of the time to hang out on the beach or whatnot. This is how school should and can be. Efficient, little or no teacher involvement but available for questions if needed, self-paced, and filled with students who have chosen to be there and aren't afraid to speak their minds and do as they choose. If that isn't what an Objectivist school, except it should be privately funded, then I don't know what is?

Securing physical property would probably take less manpower than contracts, because to secure a contract you need things like a court and government. To secure property under immediate assault you just need more men, more or better weopons, training, etc. But if the criminals are ripping of your company via fraud, hacking, etc., you would still need court and police. What would guards be able to do? Kidnap the people and hold them hostage in the multinational's basement till they said their sorry? See the problem? There would be no way that private security could enact justice on criminals, but they could properly hold off a direct assault on the company until the authorities came. The police for one. Or any person out there crazy enough to go toe to toe with them in a firefight. In other words, it would be complete anarchy. And once again what would the security force do to "collect the debt" if the debtor didn't want to pay? Give stern warnings? Hold them hostage? Torture them? There's nothing they could do to ensure payment without the force of government backing the contract.

How would they prosecute customers who defraud them or thiefs that rob them simply with their security guards who have no power to do anything?

Nonsense, I did it in 11th grade. At the begining of my junior year my family moved from Michigan where at that time you had to have about 16 credits to graduate (I had about 12) to Florida where you needed like 30, so I still had a long way to go there. With in a few days or weeks, I forget which, I quickly realized that their school system wasn't for me and I was going to be stuck in it a long time. So, I went and talked to an adminastrator and said I would no longer be attending his school and asked what my options were. He suggested the alternative school. I took checked out enrolled and ended up graduating six-months ahead of my class. I had to take so many classes to graduate in FL, that I ran out of classes at the H.S. and had to dual-enroll at the community college to make up the difference which slowed me down because college is as illogically structured time-wise as most high schools. In other words, though there is always options, just say to yourself that the normal rules don't apply to you, and then if you act on that, then to a large extent they won't, if they are illogical.

How about, Learn to act more selfish. Or, Learn why money is the root of all good. Or, Boost your Ego, learn more about Objectivism. Or, Have you rejected God today; learn more about why you are moral. Or do your hate the religous right, the socialist left, and anyone in between; learn THE alternative, Objectivism. I don't know thoses are off the top of my head.

No, you just don't get to have your contract upheld by the force of law. If you mean things like a police force, businesses and people with money will naturally want to protect their assets and will fund the police force (which won't include things like officer's driving around preying on innocents that drive a 1/2 a mile over the "speed limit", etc.) and the police will also protect your rights because that is their purpose for existing. So in other words, the business owner is selfishly protecting only his interests, but if your a cheap-ass and don't contribute to paying for the protection of your rights also, you will still get that benefit because that is the purpose of the police force being funded by non-cheap people. And don't say, "Well, what if nobody volunteered their funding?," because this would NOT happen, and the duties of the police would be so delimited that they wouldn't have much work to do anyway. How many murders, rapes, etc. happen in a normal suburban area of say 80,000 resident of a given day, week, year? The answer is not very many if any, so a proper police force would have very little work to do anyway.

I still don't understand why everyone keeps saying that speaking up to the teacher or to an admin will do nothing, when I was in H.S. and I noticed the same kind of nonsense going on I immediately removed myself from the school, and later reinrolled at an alternative H.S. meant for adults. The school was such that the teachers essentially did NOT teach, and you could simply learn at your own pace by reading through sections in the text and taking eight tests at your own pace, and voila you got your 1/2 a credit for the class. At this rate there were many classes I went through inside of a week or in some cases a day or two. This is what I recommend any rational high schooler also do so that they aren't unnecassarily exposing themselves to complete nonsense and wasting their time in a regular school. I received a regular H.S. diploma in a very short time.

"Believe" in reason. Are you thinking Objectivism is "unpractical" because others around you seem to be irrational? Ask yourself if you think capitalism is unpractical while taking into account that the United States is the richest most prosperous country in the world because it is the most capitalist country that has ever existed. Capitalism is not Objectivism, but Objectivism fully justifies capitalism and reason, so does the possible conclusion "Objectivism may be unpractical" in any way follow from the above facts of reality? Can you transfer out of that school? Possibly using vouchers to attend a private school of some sort that wouldn't try to destroy your rationality?

Where these comments made by your teacher? If so I would report them to his superior, possibly a principal or administrator. Then I would request to immediately be able to change to a class with a more rational "teacher" who would not stifle my intellectual development and self-esteem.

No that's what losers like John Kerry or immoral nihilist like Bill Clinton do. Politicians who actually accomplish good act on priciple and reason alone, not pragmatism.

I agree now is the time, and through intense effort via propagation of the right ideas we can make the immediate and near future better still.

Oh really, what are the then, non-existent entities that pop into existence when they are born? Why should a baby be considered a baby the second it "pops out", but while it still resides within the mother a nanosecond earlier it is "not an animal or a baby"? That doesn't even make sense. My sister was born three weeks premature, was she simply just a "potential" for the first three weeks of her life with no rights? All of this argumentation seem to imply there is some "magical" moment when a child first leaves its mothers body which is absurd. If you are something right now you were also that something a nanosecond earlier regardless of your current location. A is A.

Why would you say this? I am an unmarried man and have and should have by moral right 50% rights to my child. He does have half my D.N.A. and my last name and he is my son.