Rex Little

If I were stranded on a desert island with the collected works of one author of my choice--science fiction or otherwise--it would be Heinlein. (Although if I could only have one book, it would be Atlas Shrugged.) I agree with what most everyone has said about his later stuff, though; on that island, everything from The Number of the Beast on, except Friday, would be used for kindling. Among living writers, my favorite is Spider Robinson (he gets compared to Heinlein in reviews, and I can see why), with Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle close behind.

That actually points up a problem with the Objectivist concept of limited government. There's no way of financing it (or if there is, someone please enlighten me) which does not either 1)involve the initiation of force, or 2)equate in practice to anarcho-capitalism.

That exact scenario may be a myth, but an accident at a nuclear plant can certainly cause extensive damage to those nearby. Chernobyl was no myth. In that sense it's a "time bomb" metaphorically if not literally. (Chernobyl also illustrates that government regulation of nuclear power doesn't guarantee safety either, but that's not the issue here.)

"Don't use their electricity" isn't an answer. As Felix pointed out, people who live far enough away from the plant that they aren't in danger if it has an accident have no incentive to avoid using its output. This is a particular case of the general question: what right does an Objectivist government have to interfere with someone who is not directly threatening anyone with harm, but is creating a potentially hazardous situation? The general answer, I think, is that at some point the situation is equivalent to a threat of force, which the government does have the right and duty to prevent. How to determine where to draw the line? I don't know. There have probably been threads on the subject on this forum, but I don't have links.

Liri, a greyhound is way over skap's weight limit. They run 70 pounds and up when full grown. If he likes the look of a greyhound, a whippet has that at half the size. I agree with Styles that you should check out shelter dogs. That's where I got mine, and his personality is great. Often the shelter will have some information on the dog's background, which may help avoid the problems Scott describes. Labs and golden retrievers have the mellowest personalities. A purebred of either would be too big, but you might be able to find a mix that's smaller. If you're considering a mixed-breed puppy and you don't know how big it will grow, look at the feet. They're the best "leading indicator."

I don't really have a choice for the year, but Kennedy has to get a Lifetime Achievement trophy.

Are you sure that URL is correct? I just tried it and got the message "Sorry, www.ogame.org cannot be found."

A year ago, that statement was true, no question. I think the major reason for passing that law now was to find out if, with Roberts and Alito on board, it's still true.

My point exactly. This is true even though the infant is not open to reason. So "not open to reason" is irrelevant to the question of whether the fetus has a right to be removed alive rather than killed. I never said it does--indeed, I explicitly said it doesn't. But if a viable fetus has the same rights as a newborn infant (*), then that includes the right not to be killed in the process of removing it from someplace where it doesn't have the right to be. * - As I said before, I don't have a fully formed opinion on this question. But for the purpose of this topic I'm going to hold that the fetus does have those rights, because otherwise there's nothing to discuss. I'm familiar with (and agree with) the basic Objectivist position that rights derive from Man's nature as a reasoning being. I don't know what's been written on the subject of how this applies to human beings who are temporarily incapable of reasoning, such as those who are asleep, in a coma, or unborn. But if there's something in Objectivist writings which successfully draws a distinction between a fetus 10 minutes before birth and a newborn 10 minutes after, in such a way as to conclude that the latter has the right not to be killed and the former doesn't, I'd be interested in seeing it. By "human rights" I meant the full set of rights possessed by a human being because of his nature, as opposed to a subset thereof (such as property or free speech) or non-existent "rights" invented by statists (such as the right to a job). Sorry if I wasn't clear.

2. A newborn infant is not open to reason or persuasion. If one is abandoned on my doorstep, do I have the right to smother its cries with a pillow and dump it in the trash? 3. A late-term, viable fetus does not have to survive as a parasite on the mother's bodily functions. That's what "viable" means--it's possible to keep it alive independently of the mother. 1. Well, sure, if the fetus has no rights, all abortions must be allowed and why are we even discussing the question? But your assertion doesn't make it so. My mind isn't really made up on the question, but basically I'm saying that if the fetus does have human rights, then viability is where the line can reasonably be drawn on abortion (because, as you pointed out, human rights do not include the right to use another person's body against her will). (I normally use this line of argument when debating someone of the "abortion is murder" persuasion; this forum is unfamiliar territory for it.)

The mother must have the right to evict the fetus from her body anytime prior to birth, and pre-viability that means the right to abort. But once the fetus can be kept alive outside the womb, the mother arguably must remove it alive if she wants it out. After all, if someone is in your house against your will, you don't have the right to kill him unless that's the only way you can get him to leave. (Yes, I know that legally you can't kill him even then.) The same questions apply if the baby is born normally, but has birth defects requiring extraordinary medical intervention for it to survive. Can the mother simply announce to the hospital, or to some controlling authority, that she's giving the baby up? (I don't know what actual U.S. law says about this, never mind what I think the answer should be.) If she can, and no one wants it, who pays for its care? Seems to me that whatever the answers to these questions are, the same answers would apply to the prematurely induced fetus. In practice, I can't imagine a woman choosing that option (induced early birth) anyway. If she's seven months along and suddenly decides she doesn't want the child, I would think she'd either put up with the last two months and adopt it out, or get an illegal abortion if she wants rid of it that badly. (Any women in the audience who think I have no idea what I'm talking about, please feel free to let me know.)

That last word is not entirely true. At some point late in the pregnancy, it becomes possible to remove the fetus alive and keep it that way outside the mother's body. (The exact time depends on available medical technology, and will certainly get earlier as this improves.) At this point, IMO, it becomes reasonable to say to the mother, "if you want to get rid of your fetus, you can either do it this way or wait a couple of months for nature to do it for you. Killing it is no longer an option."

I don't know if you've already thought of this, but if she's working it will also cut down on the alimony you have to pay. The amount is based on the difference between your income and hers, at least if family law in Texas is anything like California.

If there's no adultery, abuse or addiction involved, I'd say your commitment to your kids is the primary consideration here. Especially if you want them to grow up learning Objectivist values along with the Christian ones their mom will teach. It's highly unlikely that you'd be able to spend as much time with them after a divorce as you can while married. You might want to check with a lawyer as to how much more a divorce is likely to cost you if you wait until the kids are grown. (It depends on your income, your wife's income, and the laws of your state.) It may be that, at 12 years, you're already past the point where it gets as expensive as it ever will be.

You have the option not to pay the businessman, in which case he has the option not to deliver the goods or service. Some government functions might lend themselves to this model, but others--most notably national defense--clearly don't.

Don't know if Tinky Holloway would make it into the movie, but if he does, Stanley Tucci would be perfect. (Holloway was described in the book as resembling "a rat-faced tennis player.")

There are obvious reasons to tip when you're a regular customer. But suppose you're passing through a city far from home and eating in a place you've never been to before and will never see again. (Or if you do, it will be years from now, long after your waiter has moved on to another job.) Assuming the service was adequate or better, do you tip? If so, why? It's not required, and you'll gain no benefit from it. The preceding questions were rhetorical. The vast majority of people would tip in that situation, simply because they have a deeply-ingrained belief that they should. If we could reliably foster the same sort of belief in regard to other types of service, we'd have a practical answer to the question of how to fund national defense in an Objectivist political system.

They do. The history of the libertarian movement is full of factional disputes as bitter as any between ARI and TOC, over this and other issues. If by this you mean that the Libertarian Party has little hope of ever getting more than lunatic-fringe vote totals, I sadly agree. (Here in Orange County, CA, a special Congressional election yesterday generated 880 votes for the LP candidate. . . and 1242 for the Green Party!) However, I don't see Objectivists exerting any significant influence on the political process or the wider culture either. I take no pleasure in this observation; I fervently wish it were otherwise.

Libertarianism per se does not deny Objectivist metaphysics and ethics. It is a purely political belief system which takes no position on issues of metaphysics and ethics. (I realize that, to most Objectivists, that's just as evil; fine, I don't propose to beat that dead horse here.) Some individual libertarians deny Objectivist ideas; others (most of the founders of the Libertarian Party, I'm pretty sure) got their worldview straight from Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness. And the Schwartz quote referenced by Fear No Evil is just wrong. There may be some self-styled "libertarians" who reject "the legitimate state function of identifying and banning the use of force," but any mainstream description of libertarian beliefs, such as the platform of the Libertarian Party, clearly names these as the only proper functions of government.

This may stretch the definition of "classical" a bit, but Leroy Anderson's "Bugler's Holiday" is my all-time favorite piece of music.

Right now my favorite is The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. It's sucked up nearly all my gaming time for nearly 8 months now, and I still haven't done everything there is to do in the original game, let alone the expansions. Throw in all the user-generated quest mods, and I literally may not live long enough to finish playing this game. Past favorites include Civilization 2, Heroes of Might and Magic 3, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, and a real oldie, Master of Magic. Going back to the pre-PC days (Atari and Amiga) there were Ultima 3, Ultima 4, and Dungeon Master.

"Wait Until Dark" - Audrey Hepburn's blind character, armed with a knife, is fighting a murderous Alan Arkin in a dark apartment. They stumble into a bedroom, off camera. The screen is dark; all you hear are sounds of the fight. Then Hepburn stumbles out of the room holding the knife, which is dripping blood. She's exhausted and emotionally drained (a lot has led up to that fight), but everyone breaths a sigh of relief that she's all right. Then Arkin comes flying out of the room, right at her. I literally jumped out of my seat the first time I saw that scene. "Count of Monte Cristo", the Richard Chamberlain version - Edmund Dantes, having escaped from prison and found hidden treasure, solemnly but emphatically intones the names of those on whom he will take revenge: "Danglars! Catarousse! Mondego! de Villefort!" You have no doubt that they are the walking dead.

Back when I played RPGs, my favorite was The Fantasy Trip. If you remember that one, you're really hard-core; it went defunct at least 20 years ago. Before that, there was a rather weird one called Empire of the Petal Throne. It was set in a world run by a hidebound bureaucracy which frowned on innovation; technology was at a medieval level and there was no transportation other than foot travel and boats. At one point I was working on a scenario where a young man invents the equivalent of a crude bicycle, is chased out of society for upsetting the established order, and discovers a small group of independent thinkers hidden in the wilderness, trading their accomplishments and working to find and attract others like them. Guess what book I had just finished reading. . . These days I'm heavily into CPRGs, and the one that has me hooked now is The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. It doesn't have any kind of alignment system; your character simply takes the consequences of his/her actions. If you're caught stealing, the guards will go after you. If you do things for people, someone might reward you with something useful. . . or not. If you gratuitously kill people (and avoid being caught by guards), you're likely to find out later that one of the people you killed was needed to finish a rewarding quest which now is impossible.

I agree that a miniseries would be best. When I first read Atlas in 1972, my immediate thought was that someone ought to make it into a series of six or eight 90-minute episodes, shown on TV over a period of two weeks or so. Keep in mind that this was five years before the first miniseries (Roots) aired.

Kristin Kreuk (Lana Lang on Smallville) has absolutely the prettiest face I've ever seen. She's Exhibit A for my belief that mixed-race women (she's half Chinese, half European) have the best looks.