flatlander

Jeep is without a doubt Chrysler's strongest brand. If any line of Chrysler's could stand on its own, it's Jeep. They would need to get away from the unions and the governments that use corporate welfare as a vote buying scheme. If Jeep were to be spun off into its own company, tell the unions to frack off, and pledge that it would stand on its own ability to make vehicles that people want to buy, with no corporate welfare of any kind, then I would happily consider its vehicles. But they are part of Chrysler, and benefit from Chrysler's parasitism. Therefore, I will not buy a new Jeep or any other Chrysler. Chrysler and GM deserve nothing but oblivion.

A bit of a lifeboat scenario, but maybe the setting is worthy of some discussion. You're standing in the water, and a very scruffy man is aiming a weapon at you. Threatening to kill you. Who is initiating force here? The man holding the weapon is. Killing him in self defense is not initiating force against him. Did you land on his island intending to steal from him or harm him? Valuing his property over your life is altruism at its most basic. But to worry about this is to drop the context as Jake has pointed out. After all, what are your choices in this scenario? Death by drowning or death by gunfire is not a choice. You're in an emergency situation regardless. Now if we dial back the immediate threat of deadly violence from the island inhabitant a bit, it stops being a lifeboat scenario. Maybe he can be reasoned with. Maybe you can make a deal to trade labor for shelter, or offer to help him build a raft to leave the island. Or maybe you simply say you will live on the far side of the island and leave him in peace.

The ad is a good ad, except for the hypocrisy. I can't help but think when I see this and other Chrysler ads that this company has been bailed out several times with money looted from productive individuals. Chrysler is more Orren Boyle than Hank Rearden. I will look at every competitive alternative before a GM or Chrysler vehicle.

I wonder if the average Tea Party supporter has the ability to continue to focus upon individual rights and fiscal responsibility and to not allow Beck and his like to muddy the waters with religion. On PJTV a few months back Yaron Brook discussed this very issue. He expressed concern that the Tea Party needed a philosophical basis, and he couldn't have been more accurate in his assessment. It remains to be seen if the religious right will hijack the Tea Party or if reason will prevail. If the Tea Party becomes corrupted with the ideology of the religious right, then America is really screwed. Compromise is the killer. The Tea Party needs to embrace reason and then either take over the Republican Party or become a viable third party. Is America ready for individual rights, limited government and free markets? Or must Americans face the consequences of statism and the resulting destruction before they are ready to embrace reason? Do we need to endure an "Atlas Shrugged" descent into chaos? These are interesting and perilous times indeed.

It would rebrand the USA as a dictatorial banana republic with a currency that is effectively funny money and backed up with nothing. But Obama, Pelosi et al are already accomplishing that feat, no currency redesign necessary. Besides, with the hyperinflation that's coming, currency notes with only two digits on them are so passe. I figure Obama's face could be on the $1,000,000,000,000 bill.

That must have been a great road trip to create the GPS message. Well done!

Connecticut wasn't ready for Schiff, and that's really too bad. It looks like the GOP is not ready to embrace a principled candidate who actually wants to promote individual rights, limited government, and free markets. The GOP still intends to ignore the Constitution. Schiff can now concentrate on running his business. Or maybe he can shrug and protect his assets while every one of his most dire predictions comes true.

Well said, Jenni. Lonelyrationalist, does your attraction to larger women make you fear being mocked by friends or thought of as some sort of "freak?" Do you worry that it is not "normal" to be attracted to large women? Your preferences are your preferences. If friends or family members are giving you a hard time about it, then your decision becomes: change your preferences (and thereby adopt their standards of beauty in a second-hand way) or assert yourself and let them know that it's not open for discussion. Speaking as a man who is also attracted to larger women, I certainly do not think it immoral to have that preference. Everyone has a "type" that they find attractive as a potential romantic partner, and morality does not enter into a strictly subjective consideration of attraction. I don't know if your situation is at all similar to mine, but perhaps you might relate. Years ago,when I was a first-year university student, I began dating a fairly large woman I had met at a college party. Lana (not her real name) was beautiful, sweet and intelligent. At the time I shared an apartment with my cousin, Ray, who was a close, long-term friend as well. He made highly insulting, rude comments about Lana's weight (fortunately not to her face). I sort of brushed them off, but I found myself inviting Lana to my apartment only when I knew Ray would not be there. After a week of tiptoeing around, I became weary of treating Lana like a dirty secret. When she made the observance that she didn't think Ray liked her very much, I decided to stand up to him. I told him that his behavior was unacceptable, that I would no longer tolerate his calling my girlfriend all sorts of nasty names. I told Ray that Lana was important to me, and that my attraction to Lana was my preference and was not open for negotiation or change. He was taken aback, he thought he was being funny and was surprised that I didn't share his attraction to very thin women. After that, he never ridiculed my choice in dates again.

I was thinking the same thing. I have always found it funny that if, for example, I order a Southwest Steak and Chipotle sandwich, they still ask what I want on it at every single step. I mean, I have ordered a Southwest Steak and Chipotle. Surely they must have a recipe for creating that sandwich. There's a picture of it up on the menu. A menu chef created it a certain way in the Subway test kitchen. There is clearly a way to make it so that it matches that picture and recipe. I want to try that sandwich. Why have sandwiches with descriptive names if you get asked at every step what you want on it? Am I only ordering a sandwich "platform?" If so, why not structure the menu so it's somewhat more a-la-carte? Is the problem the average Subway "sandwich artist?" Are they all so concrete-bound that they cannot hold a concept of what a Southwest Steak and Chipotle sandwich is?

But I think that in this case, the thief is more likely to say that he will continue to rob your employer of $100 on a regular basis, unless your employer begins to make too much money in which case he will steal $450. You take back your $100 as partial restitution. The thief is still a thief, and you are not guilty for his actions, in spite of the fact that he gave you the illusion of choice.

I think these unions would be a transitional stage. When the point is reached that currently-sovereign countries submitted to international uber-governments, the logical conclusion of such a process would be the merging of those unions into even larger federations. All the Americas, for example. Maybe Australia merged with Asia. None of the global government push would bring limited government, to be sure. I don't see how such a drive towards a One World government would be anything but tyrannical. It might be a sort of polite tyranny of busybodies, all wrapped up in liberal fascist trappings like environmentalism and multiculturalism. It certainly would take a major crisis to bring global government to fruition. Maybe a massive meltdown of credit markets that sends heavily indebted countries to the brink of economic collapse. Maybe a US President that is far more collectivist than any of his predecessors, and who would systematically assault individual rights. Oh, wait a second......

Excellent points. We do not live in a free country, whether we speak of the USA or Canada where I live. Some further government intervention that I live with (which make the USA seem like a capitalist paradise by comparison): Sales of liquor are extremely strictly controlled here. The provincial government has a monopoly on the wholesaling of beer, wine and spirits. The government also controls most of the retail sales of liquor. It owns many very large liquor stores, staffed with government unionized employees that are paid more than double the average wage of "private sector" retail workers. Bars are allowed to have "offsale" stores attached to them and they sell a very limited selection of beer, wine and spirits. Further, these stores are required to sell at a lower "daytime" price when the government stores are open and a higher "night" price when the government stores are closed. Only recently have two privately owned "specialty wine stores" been permitted to open, that's two stores in a province of over one million people. As one would expect with such a government-controlled marketplace, we have some of the highest liquor prices in North America, if not in the world. I have bought a bottle of wine at a Wal-Mart in Montana for $10.00 that sells in my home province for $35.00. All Canadian provinces have government controlled liquor sales. In Canada, all goods sold are required to have English and French labelling. Some exemptions are made for niche import products. In Canada, socialized "universal" health care has led to long waiting lists, poor quality care, doctor shortages, medical diagnostic scarcity, powerful public sector unions that control the nursing and medical technicians and support staff. Health care worker strikes are commonplace. This hellish situation is what Americans can look forward to under Obamacare. I could list many more but you get the point. We may not live in outright dictatorships but we are far, far from being free. I keep thinking that "Liberal Fascism" is the best way to describe the modern Western welfare state.

This ad certainly threatens overwhelming government force in an explicitly menacing way. Not against real criminals, or any external threat. But against American citizens, over taxes! Such threats are way over the line into tyranny.

Unfortunately these minor Ellsworth Tooheys are not saying anything that is not standard Canadian political boilerplate. If you have a strong stomach please read and comment. There are places to comment at each of the ten parts of the story. I have two initial reactions to a story like this. 1) "I will stop the motor of the world!" 2) Battle stations!

Happy birthday, Zip!

I agree, and could not have said it better.

I'd use: narcissist, amoralist, thug, scumbag. And of course, the Ayn Rand classic terms of looter, moocher, and parasite. I always cringe when I hear someone trot out the team sports admonition of "Don't be a selfish player." The implication is that a member of a team has to choose between personal glory and having his team win. Which is, of course, ludicrous. Any rational team sports athlete has to know that his best chance of success is to win, which means that not only does he have to be at his best but he has to create conditions for his fellow team members to be at their best. I'd love for coaches and commentators to use another term rather than selfish for someone who is a ball/puck hog. Maybe this type of behavior should be referred to as "team sabotaging" or "game wasting" or maybe "opportunity losing."

Well if you can believe anything that is published in Salon, this is a disturbing development. I highly doubt that the use of an executive power to give assassination orders upon American citizens would remain limited to terrorists for long. Or, as the left loves to do, the definition of terrorist will simply be inflated and expanded to mean: anyone who opposes the Obama administration. Today's target: an Islamofascist cleric, in order to sell the plan to neocons. They cheer it on, because the target is a vile piece of Islamic Totalitarian filth who deserves to get sent to meet Allah. Tomorrow's target: any number of expatriate Americans who dare to speak out against the current aspiring totalitarians that are in power in DC. I don't necessarily believe that this story is true. But if it is true, does it not mark the beginning of one of Ayn Rand's benchmarks that undeniably identify a government as a dictatorship? Is this not the beginning of executions without trial?

Lou Dobbs showed what a nationalistic, regulation-happy buffoon he really is. You can hear the exasperation in Yaron's voice. It's like they were having two different conversations. At 7:10 Dobbs (loudly): "What the hell are you calling free trade?" Brook: (voice elevated): "Free trade is us buying stuff from whoever we want to buy from-" Dobbs (interrupting): "No, that's just trade. That's just stupid. That's not free trade." Brook: "Well I'm for trade-" Dobbs: "Hell, I'm for trade!" The interview continues in more or less the same vein for the next 5 minutes. Kudos to Yaron for getting his points across in defiance of Dobbs' histrionics.

From the brief clips I saw of it I didn't see any evidence of it being heroic in any way. I thought it looked like a naturalistic misery-fest. But I think I will want to see it now, if my initial impression was wrong.

Interesting. So Galt's Gulch could conceivably be a country built on a seamount. I think it obvious that we should call it Atlantis. But considering they are referred to as "fragile ecosystems", any attempt to build on one would be met with considerable opposition from environmentalists. Out in the middle of the ocean they could attack brazenly if they so chose. Security in the construction phase would be a concern, but I think a manageable one.

I'd echo the suggestions given earlier regarding diet. Make sure you're getting your daily requirements of vitamins and minerals. You may want to check your level of exercise as well. Have you consulted a doctor? Your symptoms may have a medical cause. It wouldn't hurt to cover that base. I'd also suggest that if you are highly focused on mathematics, you could simply be preoccupied with it and that is preventing you from being able to focus on other things. A change of pace can really recharge your batteries. Go for a walk, a swim, or bike ride. Try taking a quick road trip for a change in scenery. Most importantly, keep at it. Maintaining focus will come easier with time.

St. Vincent & the Grenadines has a population of only 118 000. Vanuatu has 221 400. How about carving a country out of an existing one? If the country is too far down the road to totalitarianism, maybe it is easier to break off a chunk and put in place a proper limited government there. Ayn Rand opposed secession of states/provinces/territories in most cases, if the breakaway country simply wanted to put its own controls in place. But she did say it was moral for a portion of a semi-free or unfree country to secede and form a free country. For Canadian provinces: Alberta and Saskatchewan are the best candidates for secession. Both are resource-rich. Saskatchewan has just over one million people. Alberta has 3.7 million. Lots of resources, lots of land, and damn cold winters. Add to that the fact that the Canadian government actually has a legal framework in place for a province to secede. Canada is highly unlikely to use military force to quash a provincial secession. For US States: my immediate thought is that Montana, Wyoming and Idaho might be good candidates. New Hampshire possibly as well. How would the American government handle a state's secession in modern times?

I turned on every light in my house as well as my 42" plasma TV. Turned my thermostat up to a cozy 74F. Took a nice, long, hot shower to wash the day away. Played wii Sports Resort for about half an hour. Drank bottled water and ate a pepperoni stick as a snack. Hmmm, I could really go for a cappucino right now, the question is do I fire up my Krups pump-driven espresso machine or drive to the Starbucks on the opposite end of town? Maybe I will take the scenic route when I pick up my wife from work.

There is. We shrug.