Schtank

Well, after reading this post I'm not sure there is a right answer to this question; it may simply depend on context. Since I far from need foodstamps, and have saved enough money/work enough to pay for my food costs, I don't think signing up for foodstamps would be proper. However, if I were in dire enough straits, I could see where accepting foodstamps would be OK. But I'm simply not badly enough off to handle the blow to myself-esteem necessary to accept foodstamps. The negatives outway the positives right now. I very much appreciate the input though, and will read the updates to this forum; though I think the answer lies in context.

Hmm all good points. Thanks for the input guys. Though I don't think I'll sign up for foodstamps, I agree with Sapere and don't want to become a statistic that could expand the wealthfare state. Thanks again though, Nick

So I'm looking for some feedback here. I'm a sophomore in college and living on my own, and since I receieve federal work study I'm eligable to apply for foodstamps. Would it be morally permissable to apply for foodstamps? I think that it would, since I work and pay into the system, and Ayn Rand said that one should take advantage of such programs if one can. Still, I'd like some feedback. Thanks, Nick

I think it all depends on how open your Prof is to knew ideas/having his ideas challenged. After spending three years in college, I'm sure that you've realized that Professors aren't the bastione of open mindedness that they profess to be. Having said that, if your prof doesn't mind controversy and won't grade you down for saying something that he disagrees with, I'd stick with your current plan.

A professor showed me this, and I thought it was interesting. Thought I'd share it with you guys.

I don't know much about this, but I've heard that how one evaluates the play Night of January 16th, by Rand, can tell you what kind of sense of life they have. I haven't read the play myself, I just heard that somewhere, I'm sure somebody else on this site knows much more about it.

Hmmm Ok. Thanks guys! I'll look into them, much appreciated.

I'm currently a freshman in college and planning on majoring in economics. I'm taking macroeconomics right now, and am alittle disturbed with the textbook, which is purely Keynesian. I don't want to get brainwashed by default with Keynesian economic views, and so I'm wondering if any of you knew of a good, pro-capitalist economics book (not necessarily a text book) that I could read? Thanks!

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

As I was watching the Superbowl today, I was thinking that this is one of the greatest examples of civilization and capitalism there is. Millions of people gather to watch two teams a game at a high level on super nice TVs with plenty of food, drinks and festivities. Plus, the commercials (for the most part) are trying to sell some good that ill benefit everyones lives. The game takes place in a super nice, advanced stadium, and the half time show is amazing. I always feel a little bit of pride when I watch the superbowl.

What do you guy's make of China's rapid economic growth of recent years? Even though it still seems to be predominantly communist/fascist, China is still catching up to the US in terms of gross GNP and it's economy is growing at a rate of 7% (at least according to my economic professor, I haven't checked these facts myself, but I'm assuming they're correct, and even if they aren't, it does seem that China is catching up to the United States). So my question is, why is the predominantly facsist China catching up to the predominantly United States? Thanks

I was reading my economics book and it says that production can be done by the government. Which got me thinking that the claim is often made that government can stimulate the economy by creating jobs (that is, producing something). More specifically, I often hear people say/argue that if the government builds roads, it both produces something and creates jobs. Why are these claims false? Or are they true, but just immoral? Thanks

Ah. Thanks guys, that was a big help. Much appreciated =)

How would you guys argue against this claim: Countries with single payer systems are more efficient. People living in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Norway Sweden, England etc. have a life expectancy that is about 3 year higher than in the U.S. However, these countries spend half as much of their GDP on healthcare as compared to the U.S. Their per capita expenditure is also about half that of the U.S." I tried to point out that those countries ration healthcare considerably, violate individual rights, and that anytime the government gets involved in an industry it becomes hugely less efficient, but the person I'm argueing against ignores these points. Are there better ways I could present my argument to make it clearer/stronger? Thanks

http://www.aishealth.com/Bnow/hbd070909.html

Merry Christmas everybody, drink to your health, it looks like you'll need it.

Yah, I can see the purpouse of determining the truth value of statements, but the examples that the book gives seem much to unrealistic. Wouldn't it be better to use more realistic exampless? In hind-sight, I don't know why I decided to make this post, since any questions I have about my logic text book should be addressed to the publisher, not here on the forums lol. So sorry for wasting your times guys....

I'm in a logic class in college, and I was wondering if there was a purpouse to determining the truth value of the statements similiar to the following: If the fact that neither Paris is in France nor Stockhold is in Sweden implies that Tuscaloosa is in Iowa, then there are no Democrats in Washington D.C Thanks

I thought I did a good job explaining second handedness; my professor didn't. Your guyses thoughts? Just as the Earth is the third planet in the solar system and the sun is a giant yellow orb, it is an accepted fact that girls are “bitches” to each other, and intelligence is largely measured by comparing standardized test scores. These “facts” stem from the widely accepted practice of second-handedness: the act of seeking validation not internally from oneself, but externally from one’s peers. Moreover, the standards of second-handedness have become so prevalent in our society that they’ve started to crop up in the social hierarchy and academic standards of today’s youth. In social hierarchies, second-handed behavior comes in the form of a concept called “popularity.” Because most popularity comes not from being well-liked for who one is internally, but rather from how one wants to be perceived by others externally, popularity-seeking is by definition a second handed behavior. For instance, consider the example that Miss Wiseman, a teacher in the Empower Program for girls, presented to Margaret Talbot, the author of “Girls Just Want to Be Mean”, regarding one young pre-teen girl who abandoned her elementary school friends to go “become popular.” The elementary school friendship and fun that these girls shared was suddenly irrelevant. The only thing that mattered to the aforementioned girl was the prestige gained from others by being an Alpha Girl in the “popular” crowd. Hence, the happiness gained from her elementary school friendships was irrelevant compared to the happiness gained by being liked by others. She let a desire for secondary validation overcome validation she could achieve internally; thus behaving second-handedly. Correspondingly, in the education system, individuals are compared to a standardized, collective whole in order to gauge their intelligence. Whether or not students’ measure up to this collective whole is measured by standardized tests -- which, by grading on a curve, compare the intelligence of the individual student to the combined, average intelligence of his peers. Again, second-handedness is apparent, as students are judged not against their own personal achievements or intellectual gains, but rather against the average standards of their combined peers. Oftentimes, Alpha Girls mistreat others in order to maintain their status as popular “queen bees”. As Talbot notes, it’s not uncommon for Alpha Girls to call one another “dyke”, “slut” or “fat”. Similarly, the increased emphasis on standardized tests which, according to Peg Tyre in her article “Trouble with Boys”, has become “commonplace” for children as young as six. Consequently, curricula have become more rigid, thus, restricting teachers’ teaching styles, as they have to teach to the test, not to the individual students. Unsurprisingly, students are no longer receiving a good educational foundation when they leave school, as some statistics show that simple math, reading, and writing skills are beyond many high-school graduates (Romano). Second-handedness is not only epidemic among adolescents, but it also has disastrous effects on today’s youth’s mental and social development.

I think its just coincidence. A really really strange one haha.

Yeah its the same interview were she said "God bless you." I understood that, and why she likes it, but I can't understand the I never die, only the world does quote. I'll check out Peikoff's podcost, maybe that'll help.

Thanks for the reply, but if the "I" stops existing at death, than why does the quote say, "I never die". It seems that the "I" lives on.

I'm not really sure where this post belongs, so if its in the incorrect spot please move it. But anyways, in the Phil Donahue interview with Ayn Rand (its on youtube if you want to look it up), Ayn Rand says that, and I'm paraphrasing here, one her favorite quotes is "I never die, only the world does". She's talking about the death of her husband at the time, and her eventual death. Isn't this quote religious in nature? For instance, doesn't it insist that there's an "afterlife" for the soul? Thanks for any input.

Thanks, I was thinking along the same lines, I was just wondering if there was anything I might be missing.

Are any of them justified? Or do they make matters worse? I can't imagine how many airline regulations could be justifiable, but I'm wondering if anyone could shed some further light on the subject. As always, thanks for any input.