Zoso

I know I'm a month late, but I'm throwing my support behind Alexander the Great...and it seems that most people agree with me. I mean, the dude conquered the known world by the time he was 27. If I'm going to beat his record, I've only got 5 years...I'd better get busy.

If one actually had a good chance at winning, would it not make sense to support him?

If a Libertarian candidate wants to repeal drug laws, income tax, etc...does it not make more sense to support that candidate, rather than Bush or Kerry, both of whom would undoubtedly increase taxes and make drug laws harsher? It seems to me that, although the underlying philosophy still sucks, it's better to support the candidate who at least has something right.

Fahrenheit 9/11 won best picture.

I'm not talking about the underlying philosophy. I know that underlying philosophy is indispensable, but it seems to me that Libertarianism is more of a step in the right direction than either of the two major parties. The philosophy may still be bad, but at least some of the politics are leaning in the right direction.

Although, I'll admit that his speech was more gracious than I expected it to be.

Doesn't it make you want to vomit?

First off, allow me to say that I despise Libertarians. However, it seems to me that Libertarianism is far closer to Objectivism than either of two main parties. So why are Objectivists seemingly harder on Libertarians than they are on Republicans or Democrats?

I understand why they support them in the conflict against the Palestinians, and I agree. However, I have heard Objectivists refer to Israel as a nation that promotes individual rights...I have a hard time believing this, since Israel is rather socialist and has mandatory military service. Do Objectivists truly respect Israel, or is it just sympathy for its current conflict? (Merged topics. Also see this thread. Please search first next time.)

I haven't read everything and someone else has probably said this, but... It is justifiable if you value innocent human life. If you don't value the lives of the people hurt by the tsunami, it would be immoral to donate. If you value their lives, it is morally proper to donate. I, for one, value the lives of total strangers, and, provided that they are innocent, I would love to donate money to the tsunami relief. One thing prevents me from doing it: I am a poor college student, and the paltry amount that I could afford to donate wouldn't buy so much as a single meal. If I were rich, I might be tempted to donate a substantial amount of money, so I could feel as if it's actually making a difference.

I've read that book, but it's been a while. So, why can this not apply to strangers? I'm sure there are people out there (Spiderman, for instance) who put such a high value on all human beings, that they are willing to give up a certain kind of life, in order to protect them.

Japan is my second favorite country. I'm all for seeing them build up their military, in order to defend themselves. Are they still under any sanctions as a result of WWII?

Fair enough...I agree that it is immoral to save a stranger, while sacrificing a loved one. Having said that, is it immoral for me to sacrifice my life in order to save the life of a loved one?

What other reason is there to do it? I've never seen an Objectivist quote that rules out charity. And I don't have a quote, b/c it was in a speech that I heard and I don't have the script. If I'm ever rich, you can bet your life that I'll donate money to charities...mostly to cancer research and such, but I might also be inclined to help out some poor people, provided that they are honestly trying to better themselves. I see nothing wrong with this. If I, personally, place a value on other human beings, why is it immoral to help them out?

This probably discussion probably belongs in a separate thread. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to argue against Objectivism here...I'm trying to understand it, because there are parts that I don't really understand. This is one of the parts that I have a hard time agreeing with.

I've read AS. I understand that it's wrong to "sell suicide as an act of virtue," but if you choose to be self-sacrificial, I have a hard time understanding why that is evil, so long as you don't try to force others to sacrifice themselves as well. If you want to sacrifice yourself, are you not doing it because you "want" to? Seems to me that self-sacrifice is a value to the person who chooses to do it. I'm not saying it's a good idea, and I'm certainly not saying it's a value that I hold. I just can't understand why it's considered evil for people like Mother Theresa who choose it for themselves.

He isn't a slave, because he does it of his own choosing. Objectivism doesn't rule out charity. I went to a speech by Andrew Bernstein, where he mentioned something about some impoverished girl that he adopted from a third-world country. I don't imagine he's reaping any financial benefits by doing that.

I've never understood why altruism is considered "evil." I mean, I don't necessarily think it's logical, but if you want to be an altruist, I see no reason why I should be able to call you evil for doing so. After all, there is really no such thing as altruism.

Some people place values on people they don't even know. If I had the superhuman abilities that Spiderman did, I would probably do the same thing. I can't think of a single instance when places MJ or his aunt in danger, so that he can rescue someone else's baby.

Does anyone else love this movie as much as I do? I just saw it for the second time, and it was every bit as good as the first time I saw it. I don't know quite why I like it so much, but I know that part of it is because of how patriotic it is. I also love American history.

I've seen it on stage, and loved it. I've heard mixed reviews of the movie, but still plan to see it.

What gets me is how they have to seek counseling to cope with the grief of losing the election.

I'm not denying that there are things that are worse. But this is the one that's in the news right now. I don't turn on the TV and hear about all our aid to the Palestinian authority. What I do hear when I turn on the TV is people, Republicans and Democrats, saying that we have a responsibility to help those who were affected by these disasters. As soon as I hear people saying that we have a responsibility to help Palestine, every time I turn on the TV, I'll start complaining about that too.

That last sentence makes you sound like Lillian Rearden. And it's not that the other aid doesn't make me mad too...it's just that this is the one all over the news right now. You can't justify bad behavior by pointing to worse behavior. It may be worse to send aid to anti-American countries, but that doesn't justify this, by any means.

I am reminded of the earthquake in Bam, Iran last year which killed (I think) about 30,000 people. While America-hating countries may not have been hit this time, they have been in the past and we have poured aid into their relief. I agree that the whole world has an interest in conquering nature, but does that mean that we should pay for other areas of the globe to conquer their own unique problems?