Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

LeftistSpew

Regulars
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About LeftistSpew

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 03/06/1982

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Angola
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
    delete this
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Wesley Mouch III
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile.
  • Experience with Objectivism
    delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile. delete this profile.
  • School or University
    delete this profile.
  • Occupation
    delete this profile.

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    delete this
  • MSN
    delete this
  • Website URL
    http://delete this
  • ICQ
    delete this
  • Yahoo
    delete this
  • Jabber
    delete this
  • Skype
    delete this

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    delete this
  • Interests
    Please delete this profile. The password has been scrambled and the email address has been removed.
  1. Like I said, I think the graphical treatment of the OO main site is very nice, well thought out, etc. You should use a modified version of that for your title area and adopt the color scheme from the main site as well.
  2. I first saw RP in person about 20 years ago (I was literally walking by). He's a nice enough guy. I've always had fun watching his presence in the primaries. But he's also a case-study in the pointlessness of libertarianism. Yes, he ducks a lot of questions in the name of constitutionality, and perhaps this is politically expedient. When it comes to the "hard" questions, he's party-line fundy: “I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless a
  3. Well, clearly the dollar sign, by her own premises, was a mistake to use because it symbolizes, in the real world, government control over a particular realm of private trade, aka US currency. Clearly if she had thought this through (i.e. had the benefit of hindsight, etc.) then she wouldn't have done this. So in the current context, it has to be explained as in, "it was a mistake, but here's the explanation". Sure, I get it, and I don't fault AR for this and she clearly explained what she meant in the book, but there's no point in continuing a mistake. It would be like making the ciga
  4. Because this forums website is not the book, Atlas Shrugged. You'd need to add about 1000 pages of text to your title area in order to accomplish that. Without a carefully constructed context, and a cogent qualification, the only way to interpret a symbol is its normal usage. Most people don't look at a dollar sign and think, "that's a symbol of a perfectly, idealistically free version of the USA". On the contrary, it's usually a symbol that means, "a unit of currency minted by the United States government" or merely, "US money (in its present state)". Now, I'm not above the occasional
  5. Check out: http://www.ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html (it's a fun read regardless) Ayn Rand here specifically qualifies her stance on the dollar sign. It's not a negation by any means, but it's not a ringing endorsement of it either: it's merely a plot device in AS (where the meaning is specifically called out in a fictional context). In AS, the meaning is used to signify (a free version of) the USA, not a government-controlled currency. I'm quite familiar with Objectivism, and I don't find it appropriate...
  6. The implication of this article (dare we call it, "rightist spew"?) is that somehow the democrats are the only such Fascists in the USA. In particular his quick historical review jumped from FDR to Obama, quietly missing about 60 years of varying degrees of republican control and influence. The mixing of private and public control continues to this day, when every speaker at last night's Republican debate firmly committed themselves to various tenants of Fascism. As for socialism "versus" fascism, why again do we care about the difference? When being attacked by a shark, I don't think,
  7. Why not use a variant of the banner on the main website? That one looks nice and is very appropriate. You would also have to change the color scheme of the forums slightly to match the lighter blue, but that should be no big deal.
  8. You should lose the "dollar sign" in the title graphic as it represents an immoral government-sponsored system of currency. Its a particularly antithetical symbol to be combined with Objectivism.
  9. I'm not sure what you'd mean by, "from an Objectivist perspective", as all of these candidates are committed statists. Another question you might ask is, "based on this debate, who do you think advanced in their goal of winning the nomination the most?". In that regard, I'd say Romney. He, Perry and Paul were the only ones on that stage seriously running for the nomination--and Paul's seriousness is questionable. The rest are running for VP (I think Gingrich did himself a few favors in that race tonight). So either Rick "Social Security should be abolished" Perry or Mitt "Gold Plat
  10. As a quick rebuttal for this sort of argument ("you need to give something back"), I start the conversation with the question, "Okay. How much then?" That starts to glue the concept of trade back together: as in, "yes, I agree that people should pay for what they voluntarily make use of, but no, what you are talking about isn't the same thing". Proceed then to explain why stealing--even if its in the form of "giving" something to an unwilling participant and then charging them some made-up price for it--is wrong. On a practical level, you need to discover the price of the things people
  11. Yep, the price stability we've seen in the last 30 years has been an impressive achievement given that it's been manually produced. Even when you go back 30 years--and dip into some of the "bad old days" of pre-Volker inflation in the early 80s--you still only get about a 5% CAGR when looking at that web page and cars. Certainly a bit annoying for those who "save" by hiding piles of cash in a mattress, but virtually undetectable for most people who make use of advanced methods like say a "bank", or buy real estate, etc. etc. I suppose you can worry about the current climate in Washing
  12. Prologue I want to thank those here who--intentionally or not--moved my knowledge forward on an important subject. Whereas I started my investigation trying to answer the question, "why on Earth is the price of gold going through the roof?", our conversations took an interesting turn to the currencies, the Gold Standard, macro economics, activist tactics and finally politics and morality. I have certainly answered all of the questions in my mind about the present-day spike in the price of gold. The discussion about the Gold Standard, however, has been particularly interesting. My Co
  13. But arguing for the gold standard is not like arguing for (better teaching methodologies) in schools for several important reasons. First, bad teaching methodologies which will have adverse effects "here and now". The US dollar is not creating any problem "here and now" as it's a perfectly viable and stable instrument of trade at the present time--and I simply don't buy that our current government is itching to debase our currency and basically end civilization as we know it which is what would happen in today's context (which is very different than say the 70s). Yes, it still has a small
  14. The original topic (and thanks for reeling this back in as the thread slid off the rails about six or eight posts ago) was that the Gold Standard is not something that Objectivists should be interested in supporting. The original point was that gold in particular has various practical problems, AND that qua the primary usefulness of a currency, the US dollar is perfectly fine for now, and that yes, we all probably have much bigger fish to fry. I also tried to make the point that making a big deal out of something that is in fact a small deal diminishes your credibility. Others here poi
×
×
  • Create New...