Lord Poppycock

Who is "Noone" and what has he to do with anything?

Thanks, I’ll have to add that one to my list.

Could you tell me where you found this information? I have seen it mentioned in debates about over population before and would love to have the original source available for referencing, should I care to debate the subject again.

This might help you. http://www.peikoff.com/essays/fact_value.htm

1. Ayn Rand (100%) 2. Aristotle (88%) 3. John Stuart Mill (80%) 4. Plato (78%) 5. Jeremy Bentham (74%) 6. Aquinas (73%) 7. David Hume (69%) 8. Epicureans (68%) 9. Thomas Hobbes (68%) 10. St. Augustine (67%) 11. Cynics (66%) 12. Nietzsche (63%) 13. Kant (59%) 14. Jean-Paul Sartre (56%) 15. Spinoza (51%) 16. Stoics (45%) 17. Prescriptivism (41%) 18. Nel Noddings (33%) 19. Ockham (27%)

From what I understand the idea is that someone might come up with a cure for whatever’s wrong with her if they keep her alive long enough. I haven’t read a lot about it so I don’t know all the details and have no opinion about this particular case. But I really don't think he is trying to pay the husband for the sake of prolonging this women’s suffering.

http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/ usually has lower prices.

If you have a pirated pdf version then I would not expect the page numbers to be accurate.

Do you mean femininity? Feminism (may not have always been, but now) is, from what I've seen, ironically something anti-femininity.

Yes, that’s the North Pole.

The Ayn Rand Book Store seems to have the best prices on everything related to Objectivism. I’d recommend buying the Objectivism Research CD and the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Anyone that wants a Gmail account just let me know.

Thanks for the link.

That too.

The Incredible Bread Machine By R.W. Grant This is the story of a man whose name Was a household word: a man whose fame Burst on the world like an atom bomb; Smith was his last name; first name Tom. Now, Smith, an inventor, had specialized In toys, so people were surprized, When they found that he instead Of making toys, was BAKING BREAD! The way to make bread he'd conceived Cost less than people could believe! And not just make it! This device, Could in addition, wrap and slice! The price per loaf, one loaf or many, The miniscule sum of under a penny! Can you imagine what this meant? Can you comprehend the consequent? The first time yet the world well fed, And all because of Tom Smith's bread. A citation from the President, For Smith's amazing bread, This and other honours too, Were heaped upon his head! But isn't it a wonderous thing, How quickly fame is flown? Smith, the hero of today, Tommorow, scarcely known! Yes, the fickle years passed by, Smith was a millionaire, But Smith himself was now forgot, Though bread was everywhere... People, asked from where it came, Would very seldom know. They would simple eat and ask, "Was not it always so?" However, Smith cared not a bit, For millions ate his bread... And everything is fine, thought he, I am rich, and they are fed! Everything was fine, he though, He reckoned not with fate. Note the sequence of events, Starting on the date, On which the business tax went up. Then, to a slight extent, The price on every loaf rose too: Up to one full cent! "What's going on!" the public cried, "He's guilty of pure plunder! He has no right to get so rich on other peoples hunger!" (A Prize cartoon depicted Smith, With fat and drooping jowls, Snatching bread from hungry babes, indiferrent to their howls!) Well, since the public does come first, It could not be denied That in matters such as this, The Public must decide! So Anti-Trust now took a hand, Of course, it was appalled At what it found was going on. The "Bread Trust" it was called. Now this was getting serious, So Smith felt that he must Have a friendly interview With the men in Anti-Trust. So hat in hand, he went to them. They'd surely been misled; No Rule of Law had he defied. But then their lawyer said: "The Rule of Law, in complex times, Has proved itself deficient. We much prefer the Rule of Men, It's vastly more efficient! Now let me state the present rules," The lawyer then went on, "These very simple guidelines, You can rely upon: You're gouging on your prices if You charge more than the rest. But it's unfair competition if You think you can charge less! "A second point that we would make To help avoid confusion... Don't try to charge the same amount, That would be Collusion! You must compete. But not too much, For if you do you see, Then the market would be yours - And that's Monopoly! Price too high? Or Price too low? Now, which charge did they make? Well, they weren't loath to charging both, With Public Good at stake! In fact, they went one better! They charged "Monopoly!" No muss, no fuss, oh, woe is us! Egad, they charged ALL THREE! "Five Years in jail," The Judge then said "You're lucky it's not worse! Robber Barrons must be taught, Society comes first!" Now bread is baked by government. And as might be expected, Everything is well controlled. The Public well protected. True, loaves cost a dollar each, But our leaders do their best! The selling price is half a cent.. (Taxes pay the rest.)

"Selfishness is a Virtue" I like that one a lot.

Why does it matter where something was made?

The proper response would look something like this:

I always pictured James Taggart as a little overweight and ugly.

I don’t argue what I don’t know. And I agree that no one should. I’m something of a beginner, compared to a lot of the people here, but I’m learning more everyday. Thanks for the advise, I’ll put any in depth study of Kant off for now and start myself off on summarys of his work when I do get into it.

Thank you. This should be enough, I’ll just give her a link to this thread. I appreciate the information and hope to see more. I will eventually have to read Kant because I would like to be a philosophy professor. I’d love to read any information that an Objectivist with a wider context of knowledge than myself has to offer pertaining to Kantianism or any other philosophy. All such information is greatly appreciated.

I know most of that is wrong, but I haven’t read anything by Kant, and I’m not sure how to properly explain how Kant caused Nazism and Communism. How would you answer such questions?