Lancifer

Wow. I had no idea that this thread had continued for so long. I haven't been on the forum for a long time now. I do appreciate everyone's feedback. Just as an update, things are much better here. I've found some people that I genuinely enjoy being around. It doesn't make living here ideal by any stretch, but it helps.

Thank you, Oakes. Those are the types of responses I was looking for. But, again. I'm not looking for the Objectivist stance. I was looking for more personal opinion.

Actually, I was hoping that some one would bring this up. Privatizing the military seems like it would be a rather risky concept for national defense, in the sense that it would have potential to become very mercenary. An army for hire could just as easily work against the nation, as for it. This is a little off from the thread, but the idea intrigues me. I haven't done a particularly good job explaining the reasons I started the thread. I'm still new to this. I was hoping for an open discussion on ideas for the military in an Objectivist society, the problems that could come from it being privatized and solutions for those problems. I think that there will be a lot of different input from individuals on the forum, and I was curious about peoples reaction to the concept. I hope this clarifies it a little more.

It dawned on me that I didn't clarify what I wanted to know very well. I'm not so curious as the role of the military, I wanted to know what people thought the way the military would fulfill the role would be. Obviously, the role would not change very much, but the policies for the military becoming involved in foreign affairs would, I imagine. As far as structure is concerned, where would the military recieve it's funding from? Would the branches remain seperate? With technologies becoming more and more privatized, how would the military maintain a superior force compared to other nations? I'm not looking for an ultimate Objectivist answer, I'm just curious about every one's opinion on the subject.

I was curious about what other people thought the role and structure of the military would be under an Objectivist/Capitalist system. I'm new to Objectivism and honestly haven't given the idea much thought. I would appreciate any one's feed back in this area. As a member of the US Air Force, I'm particularly interested in everyone's views on this subject. I can't take full credit for the thread. Smathy actually inspired me to start this one.

I will be stationed here for at least a year and a half longer. I do pursue my interests still. I play guitar, draw, and read constantly. Whats bothering me is being isolated from social interaction with people that share the same values. I have met some good people down here. I do things on weekends with them, but I always miss having people that I can just sit and talk with. I work at night, so I can't even talk to my friends because my schedule is so different than theirs. I was half hoping that some one on the forum would be from this area and could suggest places that I could go to interact with some like minded people. That and I'm trying to become more active on the forum so I can at least have some interaction, how ever distant, with people who think the way that I do.

I have to wonder if you have ever experienced sex with some one you truly love and want to be with. I have and being able to feel that made me decide that I don't want to sleep with any one that I don't have those feelings for. Sex just for sex is unfulfilling and shallow. And I say that as an absolute. Having sex is just part of something greater. Experiencing it without love is like seeing a Monet in black and white. It's still a good painting, but you won't be able to appreciate the genius of the color and depth. You'll be left wanting more. Sex is the same way. Without love, you just catch a glimpse of some thing beautiful without ever comprehending how incredible sharing that with some one you love can be. Companionship is much more valuable than sex. Please excuse the awkward analogy. I couldn't think of another way to put it.

I recently got stationed on Tyndall AFB in Panama City, FL. The only people I have contact with are my coworkers and their only interests seem to be getting drunk and going to clubs and bars. It doesn't really help that Panama City doesn't really have much culture. Of course, I'm originally from a town that doesn't really cater to anything but hunting, drugs, and drinking. Living there wasn't as bad though, because I had a small group of people who I shared ideas with. Here, I'm surrounded by people that seem to have little or no interest in any intellectual pursuits. Everything is sports, sex or drinking. I'm having trouble getting comfortable here, mainly because the only people I really am able to have any reasonably intelligent conversations with live states away. If any one has any advice on dealing with living in not only a non-Objectivist environment, but a fairly intellectually devoid evironment, I would greatly appreciate it. I hope this is the appropiate place for this topic. If it isn't, please excuse the mistake. Lance J Abbe

Thank you for the correction. That was a distinction I shouldn't have missed. My mistake.

The entirety of AS was used as a platform to set two ways of thinking against each other. Collectivism and Objectivism. I agree that the book reaches out to people that advocate self defeating philosophies, but the book was only pitting Collectivism and Individualism against each other. Any other way thinking would not have fit into the over all theme of the book. That being said, the book has already been written, questioning whether or not there was a better way to go about the objective is irrelevant. My personal opinion, I think that the book had to demonstrate the full honesty of the destructiveness that collectivism breeds. Anything less would have been ineffectual.

Thank you.

Being a person that is way too much into his own appearance, I just had to add something to this thread. My advice goes for both men and women. Stay away from trends. If you dress with whatever the current trend happens to be, you look just like every one else (like a tasteless whore, judging from current trends) and you have clothes that you can’t wear 3 months from now. Dress classy. It works for every one. Simple, confident, and tasteful. And it’s not nearly as expensive as being trendy.

I have the dubious honor of trouble shooting and repairing radar and all other avionics systems on jets that never seem to stay fixed long enough to get off the ground again. It’s a fun job. I do actually love it, though

Felipe, I definitely agree with you on this point. Further more, Rand wasn’t labeling all people with a socialist tilt as eternally evil. Those characters, as Felipe stated, proved to immoral time and time again, regardless of how many opportunities they had to amend their thinking and ways. The purpose of such characters is to provide an antagonist and contrast to the heroic. Jim Taggart represented the antithesis of rationality through out Atlas Shrugged, thereby fulfilling the role as a villain or antagonist. Portraying him as such was necessary, in a literary sense, to show the alternative to collectivism.

Originally, I was introduced to objectivism through Terry Goodkind’s books. However, I didn’t know it was objectivism. Later a good friend from high school asked me if I had read any of his books, he knew I read a lot of fantasy, and told me he was an objectivist. Then he introduced me to Ayn Rand and I’ve been reading her books and researching it on the net ever since.