Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Kate87 last won the day on December 3 2013

Kate87 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

2357 profile views

Kate87's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. http://www.hulu.com/watch/563008 Thought this was worth posting. Jony Ive definitely shares the same aesthetic ideals as Objectivism. Its good to see that one of the biggest companies in the world has such a good design philosophy. I'm just at the part where he's describing the design of the space shuttle window - how it's design is amazing and how the function dictates the form and the result is such a beautiful object. Love it.
  2. We delegate our use of defensive force to the police. I agree if its the heat of the moment, i.e. someone attacks you on the street, then you have to do it yourself. But generally its smarter for the police to do it. And if they aren't doing it because they're overwhelmed, then you have insurance.Why defend a business that is located in a crappy area? Relocate the business with the insurance monies. Don't risk injuring yourself.
  3. Of course the rioting isn't justified. I've not heard anyone here say it is. And those people defending their businesses with rifles? They are morons. The use of force is monopolised by the state in a free society. Those guys should buy insurance, sit it out at home, and plan the relocation of their business out of the area.
  4. That's not fair, I added the gun point because it was relevant, my main point is regarding police militarisation as per the thread title. Rereading some of my posts above I think I exaggerated on America being broken by the way. I don't in fact think its that bad yet.
  5. This feels like a language deconstruction exercise. Militarised is militarised. To give you a visual representation: Here is a video of the kind of looting in the English riots that was going on where I lived: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14474393 They were 15 years olds mostly, and note that the police did not target journalists. Note also that their riot gear is somewhere between the two extremes shown in the photo above.
  6. Bad source I agree, but the video footage stands on its own merits.
  7. See that Youtube video you posted and murders you quote? Stuff like that happens at a greater rate in America than in the UK. The important thing is that the two thieves are behind bars - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17232636 That is how you do policing and justice. No guns needed by the police. Let alone military equipment. During the London riots in 2011 I was angry. I even called for more to be done by the police. But you know what scares me more than rioters? Police with military equipment. The army on the streets should be a last resort. Normal riot gear combined with mass arrests and overnight court sessions were what stopped the London riots. No ridiculous military weapons needed. How can you not see the danger presented by militarised civilian law enforcers?
  8. “While the [London riots] were at their worst, people were calling for rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons to be used against the rioters, Ferguson is a living example of why we should be immensely grateful that those tactics were never used during the U.K. riots."[115] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/08/18/how-the-rest-of-the-world-sees-ferguson/
  9. Witness the police deliberately firing tear gas at journalists: America has broken down, if you don't think this is coming to a town near you soon then I have a poem for you:
  10. As I say, if any of those points are violated you get a spiral of violence. Witness the events in Ferguson as evidence where both citizens and police can own military grade weapons. Witness the arms race between citizens and the police as evidence.
  11. In a free society where the use of force is minimised: Citizens should be arrested for owning weapons like military grade guns and molotov cocktails. Citizens should have the right to peacefully protest without hassle from the police. Police should not carry guns in normal use. If citizens become violent, special police forces with weapons should be used sparingly and those weapons should not be military grade. All of the above is common sense and if any of them is violated you get a spiral of violence. Witness the events in Ferguson as evidence where both citizens and police can own military grade weapons. Ferguson is for all purposes a mini police state; if there isn't radical reform and demilitarisation across the USA (of both police and citizens) then your US town will be next. This leads into the debate on gun laws in the US. Police militarisation is a direct result of having an armed citizenry, where a literal arms race has occured.
  12. I agree. He speaks of enlisting them onto "electoral polls" which also doesn't make sense to my British ear. Surely this should be "electoral rolls"? In the same way he says the word "racists" but the way he slurs his speech he probably meant to say "races". The sentence doesn't make sense to enlist "racists from any country" but enlisting "races from any country" does make sense. So it's not just racist/races it's polls/rolls. Peikoff is definitely too old for this stuff and doesn't speak clearly enough. They're minor errors but can have huge differences to meaning as is demonstrated in this thread. How does "racists from any country" make more sense than "races from any country"? Especially in the context of his stated views of the Democrats deliberately letting in foreigners that vote Democratic?
  13. Is it immoral to make a fortune from bootlegging illegal alcohol? Surely the immorality lies with the government for making it illegal. He definitely values the wrong thing, ie Daisy. That's the tragedy of the story. But it still affirms Gatsby as being a great man. As Nick says "You are worth 10 of them" (paraphrase)
  14. *spoilers below* Not sure how you got that from the story! I took from it that Gatsby's ambition, vision, wealth, and love were basically wasted on the wretches surrounding him. The rest of the characters (apart from Nick) were leading careless lives having been born into wealth. Gatsby earned his wealth and so it can be seen as promoting the idea that people who earn their wealth are better than spoilt frivolous people with inherited wealth. The fact that Gatsby loses in the end, while the wretches walk off to more carelessness, is a sad ending but renders a powerful emotion at the injustice of it all. This serves to reinforce the worthlessness of everyone else and the worthiness of Gatsby. One thing that may interest people here is the Art Deco style of the movie which I have noticed feature in a lot of Ayn Rand literature eg the covers of FH and AS etc. Also I loved that the party music was modern pop and rap interspersed with jazz which conveyed some of the "bling" culture of the 1920s to a modern audience.
  15. I think racism is worse than socialism. France could be said to be more socialist than capitalist in that government spending makes up over 56% of the economy. Yet would you rather live in a racist society than France? France: Racist society: I do agree that France is like it is despite its socialism. Also that many other socialist societies don't look like France. However segregation and lynchings and such things happen in ALL racist societies. Therefore since some socialist societies can still protect a majority of a person's rights (like France), socialism is better than racist societies which trample on most of a person's rights.
  • Create New...