ruveyn1
-
Posts
351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by ruveyn1
-
-
Do you think that Ragnar violated the Objectivist tenet of not initiating force?
Ragnar was a pirate so you might have a point. However Francisco destroyed only his -own- property which he had a right to do.
ruveyn1
-
So you are saying that because you will die you should attempt to live on in your children? Rather second-handed don't you think?
Having children is a way of promoting your values (not guaranteed to work, by the way). It is not necessarily living one through one's children.
I think Ragnar was in -Atlas Shrugged- because Ayn Rand had a thing about Vikings.
ruveyn1
-
If there is no free will, I would have no choice but to agree with you.
I don't agree with you.
Or maybe you wold have had no choice but to disagree with him. Hmmm.
ruveyn1
-
Including me. A poll tax is an invitation for the government to extort you in return for having the right to vote.
What if the government set the poll tax so high only the very rich could vote? Then you would have a nice sweetheart deal between the government and the very rich which would screw the middle class thoroughly.
The few taxes the better off we are.
ruveyn1
-
Couldn't we have a poll tax instead? I don't want taxes at all in the government, so maybe a good way to fund the government is a yearly voting fee of sorts.
I don't see how any of these ideas could ever be implimented though. Too many people would oppose them.
Including me. A poll tax is an invitation for the government to extort you in return for having the right to vote.
The few taxes the better off we are.
ruveyn1
-
There are two kinds of philosophy. One kind is subject or susceptible to empirical validation (i.e. has empirical verification and is potentially falsifiable by empirical means) and the other kind is not.
ruveyn1
-
There are two kinds of philosophy. One kind is subject or susceptible to empirical verification and the other kind is not.
ruveyn1
-
C. Bradley Thompson from an ARI lecture, speaks about the abolition of government schools (public schools) here:
http://www.aynrand.o...e=reg_ls_school
and in his article he has in the current issue of The Objective Standard:
http://www.theobject...w-abolition.asp
But how?
He mentioned a mass exiting of them to the private sector.
So... any thoughts on how to abolish government school, or a way towards such abolition?
My thoughts:
What about students becoming truants? (I get this idea from Isamu Fukui series titled, The Truancy) or how about parents not delivering their children/teens over to such schools? More practical just to go private?
The government will still collect taxes to run the loot funded government ordained schools if for no other reason than to provide jobs for teachers. If the Good Guys run from the public school and the attendance goes to zero, the teachers will stand in front of rows and rows of empty seats. And the Good Guys will still be taxed.
ruveyn1
-
Some times I wonder about the difference between ignorance and apathy.
But most of the time, I don't and I don't care.
ruvey1
-
I did. It's just not the answer for you. It's only the answer for me because I don't share your negative fear filled attitude towards life. Insurance is useful and beneficial, and exists specifically to serve people with your view, which is why you should carry coverage for every conceivable contingency. Do you? That is your answer. Buy lots of insurance so that you will feel safe and secure in the knowledge that others will pay your bills.
I am so filled with fear that I check the pressure on my tires at least once a week. Precaution is the daughter of fear. Also people who take precautions tend to live longer.
Live long and prosper. And the best of luck to you.
ruveyn1 (who is part Vulcan)
\\//
-
I think that only property owners have rightfully earned the privelege of voting.
In better and older times being a freeholder has a condition for having the vote. A property owner has a horse in the race and a dawg in the hunt. He is less likely to want to loot the treasury of the commonwealth.
ruveyn1
-
Replication is one of the things living beings do.
ruveyn1
-
Thing is, when Galt started the strike, were things that bad then? All we know, as far as I can gather from the novel, is the workplace situation, not what the world was like overall, then. We see what it's like after they started going on strike, the trail of destruction Frisco and Ragnar caused, as well. Why didn't he just quit, seek employment elsewhere, or use any intellectual ammo against the change in policy at his workplace, or against whatever was going on in the world at the time, etc?
What was the world like when Galt went on strike? Probably a mixed economy?
Look at the opening scene. Edie Willers notes that one out of for shops and stores are closed and out of business. He has bad news for Jim Taggart. Taggart Transcontinental is going to wrack and ruin. Things are falling apart. Partly because of Galt's efforts and partly because a mixed economy will fall apart eventually in any case. Galt is just speeding up the inevitable.
ruveyn1
-
We need an armed force to protect our nation from hostile Bad Guys. Do you think would would have a sufficient army if it were privately owned and funded. And what would keep such an army on the straight and narrow, protecting the nation instead of trying run it.
ruveyn1
-
It occurs to me that the Strikers did more than leave the country to fall into ruin. They formed a community so they could continue to function, but this time in the company of people they could admire, trust and rely on to produce value to trade for value produced. They left a big bad world and continued their existence in a smaller better world.
ruveyn1
-
There is an easy cure. Do not attend the display of such junk. Boycott it. That would cut off the money supply. Problem solved.
ruveyn1
-
Outlawing every single gun in the USA would violate the rights of many, and prevent the violation of the rights of others. We can debate all day about the extents of either of these, and it would be highly contextual and varied, but the above generalized fact is demonstrably true.
Such a move would assure that only criminals, the police and the army had fire arms. It would no doubt cause many otherwise law abiding citizens into break-laws, those citizens who would not surrender their weapons, but hide them until needed.
Aside from doubtful Constitutionality, denying civilians firearms would be totally non-productive and most likely harmful.
ruveyn1
-
added to the fact that i purchased not one thing last year
You must have had over a year's supply of food on hand.
How about electric power and fuel for you car, assuming you have a car that needs fuel.
ruveyn1
-
Render unto Obama those things which are Obama's and unto God those things which are God's. Since Obama thinks his is God, He wins, either way.
Did you know that Barak Obama goes back to Hawaii every year to visit the Manger where he was born.
ruveyn1
-
this from another article:
"President Obama urged religious leaders to back his plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans — by saying that it is what Jesus would do.
Keeping with a presidential tradition, Obama spoke to the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington Thursday and passionately connected his policies to his religious faith."
http://www.nydailyne...0#ixzz2HjtExgCA
Render unto Obama those things which are Obama's and unto God those things which are God's. Since Obama thinks his is God, He wins, either way.
ruveyn1
-
Swarts was in breach (allegedly) of 4 federal statutes. Now, if he were a virtuous practicer of Civil Disobedience to protest these laws then he would have stood to accept the penalty of these laws. That is the rule for honorable civil disobedience. If the laws were grossly unjust, his being penalized would have created enough public indignation to get the laws repealed. Afterward, the courts could have reduced his sentence to time served (if jail were involved) or canceling any fines levied against him. However he chose suicide. By the way, the Justice Department has vacated all charges against Aaron.
ruveyn1
-
I agree completely with Rand and Branden's decision to keep their affair a secret. All romantic relationships should be private — with the exception of marriage, which by its nature involves a public declaration. (Even then, it's not a good idea to discuss specific details of your love life with anyone but close friends.)
Ayn Rand's enemies have had a field day with the revelation of the affair. Can you imagine how it would have been used against her at the time?
None of us can know the exact circumstances and context which made this type of arrangement seem to those involved to be an avenue worth pursuing. What we do know is that it was consensual, and there was seemingly no deception.
Perhaps the affair was a mistake — then again, it apparently gave Rand much-needed inspiration and fuel during the years that she was writing Atlas Shrugged. (AR initially dedicated Atlas to both Branden and her husband.)
I'm usually not too concerned about the personal lives and decisions of others. People are free to do what they want; if they choose poorly, they will suffer the consequences.
It's generally better to take an easygoing, accepting attitude toward the issue of love and sex, rather than to risk becoming overly rigid in your approach, and thus puritanical in your thinking.
The real problem was elevating Ayn Rand to the Platform of Utter Perfection. Rand was a talented writer, no doubt about that (look how many copies of her novels sell on Amazon). However she was as all the rest of us are, quite human with the same inventory of faults and deficits that come with being human.
ruveyn1
-
If I had your attitude, I'd run out and buy all of the insurance I could lay my hands on. I suggest you do just that.
You did not answer the question I put to you.
ruveyn1
-
Is there something inherent in the nature of force that requires that one agency have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force?
There are some historical examples where multiple armed forces (or even gangs) bode ill for the society at large.
For example in Germany of the ruination of the Versailles Treaty started to wreck German multiple armed groups, the Freikorps organized. These consisted of veteran soldiers (mostly) of the Great War and they were sore. They felt they had been betrayed by the politicians and were not favorably disposed toward the Weimar Republic. Many of these groups were out for bloody revenge. The sequel shows the result. The rise of the S.A. and the rest is history.
ruveyn1
AL QAEDA DISBANDS
in Political Philosophy
Posted
A good satire. One of the characteristics of good satire is that it is barely distinguishable from the very thing it satirizes.
Well done.
ruveyn1