Atlashrug9

OK -- I think I did not explain my -- logical reasoning. I am hungry and I steal food to live. The next day my car breaks down, and I have to drive somewhere -- You have three cars and why should I not "borrow" yours because you have plenty (never mind that you earned them.) The drive is important, thought not life and death -- I just think it becomes a slippery slope. Kind OF On Topic -- Discussion with significant other tonight -=He this it should not be the "top agenda of the gov't to see to it I that the we-- wealthiest (IMHO those people who have created ands earned) -- to reduce the wealthiest people's taxes while cutting the Viet Vet benefits. I tried to explain the actual tax cuts and was ignored -- Much jargon about politicians being in someone’s pockets, which I am sure is true on all sides. I, of course disagree and tried to explain that these "wealthiest" have created what I cannot. And that no one, has the ability to take what they did not earn to give it to someone else that "needs" it. In short -- " I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another, nor ask another to live for mine." Quote might be wrong it is off the top of my head. Scary thing is -- the man is not stupid, but seems to live in a pretend world where everyone should be happy -- be happy -- regardless of their ability, or desire to live I reply -- from each according to his ability TO each according to his ability. He has still not read Rand, and I stick around because I KNOW he knows it because I believe he will get it -- just needs some detoxification from the college experience that teaches us that we are selfish to want own achievements. Once he gets a couple of books under his belt -- I truly hope he comes along! (Fixed quote tag - sN)

I think he is alive and well -- and most likely under surveillance. I doubt even PODUS would now, better to stay on yop of him before hadn than kill him and let psycho 2 take his place.

Actually, if we lose this wae it will not be because of the "power" of the terrorists, or other states. It will be the lack of power provided and encouraged by these people, so yes -- they could be considered a bigger threat.

My position with wiping out Bin Laden and the rest of his groupies goes a bit deeper. I think because people like Saddam have repeatedly claimed we do not have the stomach or resolve to go to, and stay in war, we are perceived as an easy target. Force is morally justified against force. Once these leaders, especially the Iranian government see that we are willing and able to use swift and lethal force, they will think twice about attempting to attack us, or our interests. As much as they want to breed martyrs, most do not want to become them.

Me...

I believe we are looking at different ideas here. From what I understand through my father, who is knowledgeable in this area, the "leaders" or shot callers are in these regions. Though, yes, the martyrs and follwers exist everywhere (even in own own country). However, chopping off the head would certainly cripple the operation. Hopefully long enough for a Middle Eastern movement towards capitalism and freedom, which would end terrorism entirely.

Interesting topic. My first sexual encounter was "date" rape. I was 13 and I continued to date the man though never sleeping with him again for 8 months. I think in a search for some value, to make it ok with me. In the end I left him, and he was devastated. I never understood why. Since then I have had numerous sexual partners, I am a 30 year old woman, and each partner has added value to my life. (OK ...except one). Love for me is a concrete term that is lifelong, but I think you can value a person and enjoy a sexual relationship with them because of the things you value, without making it all the way to love. I have loved many people, to a point. But until I find Mr. Galt, I enjoy my time with Mr. Reardon.

I do not believe "altruism" exists. The bumper sticker we see "Practice random kindess and senseless acts of beauty," boils down to "practice random senseless acts. This is not a logical or even human way to behave. Doing something for someone else is always based on your own value. If it makes YOU feel good to be able to help someone else, then go ahead. Rarely, if ever do people "act" for no reason, or a reason that does not give them some benefit be it emotional, physical or financial. Nor can we as inherently logical beings.

OK I hate silly hypotheticals as well, however -- Iam going to put one out there. Stealing is evil. If I am starving and someone has left there extra food outside and I take it (which I would to live) I have committed an evil act, however ... because I know that I would not choose death I would say my evil act justified the means. Taken to the extreme however, this becomes an argument for socialism, and that scares me. So I think the answer here is that certain situations we face we use unjustifiable means to an end. It is still morally wrong.

Three things need to happen, and with the senate and house elections coming I do not think they will. 1. End Castro's dictatorship. We have an enemy, that would be a friend 90 miles off our border. The people are starving, they (for the most part) do NOT hate Americans, and it is strategically too close to our border to be allowed to exist. 2. We need to strategically bomb and destroy all of Iran's nuclear sites. No UN no questions, no ground troops. Give warning allow civilian departure and annihilate the threat. I have no doubt, given the chance --- they will kill us. 3. We know where the terrorists (or about 90% of them) are hiding, even if we do not know the exact coordinates, we need to surround the desserts and caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Again, allow for civilian departure and provide it if necessary. Then we nuke the entire region. We will pay reparations to the countries, but enough is enough. For too long America has sat back and allowed our enemies to grow into serious threats. It is time for our country to behave the way we were all taught to behave since 4th grade-- fight for your way of life and what you believe in. America was and is the greatest nation in the world and we did not get there by backing down or "sitting out." We fought to exist in 1776, and we have continued that fight for over two hundred years. The longer our enemies perceive us as weak, the bigger target we become. If we accomplish these three acts, immediately, I seriously doubt ANYONE will think of threatening us again. We became the worlds strongest power because our way of life is just that, a country of life, not death. We must continue to fight for this, regardless of the world public opinion. They can disagree, but they cannot act, because they will never be as strong as America. The simple reason for this is that despite being a "young" country our federalist capitalist state has shown the world the way to wealth and happiness. Join in or get out of our way.

I think Ann,who I generally agree with politically, though I am an aethist, is just trying -- like Rush ten years ago to make a spectacle out of herself to espouse a generally good political philosophy. As a republican I hate that our actual values are tainted with religious jargon, but next to the opposition ... at least we have some values.

I seriously disagree with the argument that colonization is "evil." While I realize that taking over governments through force is generally not justified, we have to check our facts. The main candidate for colonization today, in my opinion, is Africa. Africa as a continent is facing a level of poverty that a U.S. citizen could never even imagine. There is a reason for this, and it is simple ... we are right. Capitalism, and democracy (or better yet federalism) work. Historically, Africa was at its wealthiest era in the early 1960, just prior to "decolonization." Racism is wrong, slavery is wrong, and forced governments are wrong. However, the governments (for the most part) throughout the continent are forced dictatorships. These people, unlike our founding fathers do not have an ocean between their oppressors, or a country like France to back a fight. In Africa, where tribal warfare dominates the majority of the inland nations, and the population speaks over 2000, yes 2000, languages, economic colonization is the only hope. I would not suggest, or maybe I would, that we should go into Africa militarily and force our way of life, but I think because our way of life is right, it should at least be an option for the African people. Unfortunately because Africa is so dangerous US and EU businesses are hard pressed to move in and try to generate wealth. Governments change hands daily through murder and corruption, and there is simply no way without force to ensure any investment in the area. The population of Africa, not its natural resources, are an untapped economic gold mine. With proper military, or private armed security, businesses would be able to use the labor force of Africa, finally giving these people a chance to live the life we take for granted. I would also point out, in passing, that the ONLY economically viable country in Africa is South Africa. Not coincidentally, the only country that was not decolonized. While I abhor the racial bias, and corruption, I doubt this problem would occur with companies, who will pay the best person for the best job. It is not in a company's interest to evaluate or discriminate based on race. Those that do will eventually fall to companies who hire the best work force regardless of prejudice. In short, I believe there is a right and a wrong way to live, propagating the right way cannot be evil. Multiculturalism is a joke, the “cultures” we have dominated are better off for it, living safer, healthier and more productive lives. We all benefit when capitalism prevails and people are allowed to trade freely.

I know way too much about Sid Meyers Pirates (video game).... and it is actually wasting my time!!!!

I think this topic is a complicated issue for a lot of reasons. On some level I feel that by allowing countries such as Iran to exist -- i.e. not taking aggressive military action, I am hurting my own interests. Fighting for a capitalist (or as close as you can get to one) government to prevail in the Middle East will improve my life economically. Further, allowing theocratic dictatorships to sit on wealth that allows them access to weapons that I know could be used to annihilate me, or my Annihilate , is frightening to say the least. I have no doubt given Iran's political statements about the US that if given the chance (which it looks like they are coming close to) they will attack my country and my interests. Rather than carpet bombing I would first attempt to strategically bomb military sites (it is up to the Iranian people to take down their own government, like we did here), however if this does not eliminate the problem then I will fight a logical threat before it becomes a physical action.

Reardon knew that someone may have DISCOVERED i.e. CREATED the same product (because human knowledge will ultimately achieve, or create what Reardon first discovered), but theft, without knowledge or reason, is not discovery in Objectivist terms. It is looter mentality.