ds1973

I feel your Pain rational one. Stick to people under 28-30. They have not yet solidified their world-view. Don't try to sway the older crowd unless they show a spark of intelligent out-of-the-box thinking. I get a kick out of being able to defend the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Right for a woman to have an Abortion from the same right-to-life premise. Remember to defend the RKBA around your anti-gun leftist relatives and the right to an abortion around your religious-right relatives. Makes for fun dinner discussions. Demetrius

AqAd & SoftwareNerd, You both brought up a good point, I didn't mean to apply that calculation to money that you hadn't paid. You can't really lay claim to money that your parents paid to the government. It has been pointed out that if your parents are paying (and willing to pay for) college, this could be true. I will admit that I received financial aid in the form of govt subsidized stafford loans, however, I am someone who wanted to go to school badly enough to find a way. In the absence of government loans, the private sector would fill the gap for student loans. Additionally, people who did not have a burning desire to go to college wouldn't waste their time. Also consider the economic ramifications of govt subsidies. When it subsidizes college loans, the government artificially increases demand resulting in an increase in college tuition. One could argue that govt subsidies create a system in which one needs to utilize the subsidies unless one is extremely wealthy (defeating the purpose of the program to provide affordable education in the first place). Other examples of govt programs exacerbating conditions they were designed to alleviate: In the case of unemployment, the cost of employing people is increased by the taxes imposed on businesses and individuals (ex SS) and limitations on the work-week (ex: state requires overtime pay after 40 hrs). These things raise the cost of employing a worker, resulting in a business hiring 10 instead of 11 or laying off 2 people instead of 1. Public schools: I should not have to pay for public schools. What if I have no children or choose to send my children to private schools. The government creates a system in which, unless I am wealthy enough, I would need to really stretch to send my child to a private school (to pay prop tax & private school tuition). Good article on Cap Mag on subsidies resulting in unaffordable housing. The underlying principles are applicable to all subsidy programs. http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=1404 Demetrius

Interesting idea. I have $$ saved up, because I don't want to have to rely on the government, however in today's society the government has forcibly confiscated my honest earnings. I have a family to think about so it's likely that if I ever lost my job I would: 1) Institute cost-cutting measures around the house, emergency budget and estimate how long the savings will hold out (my wife would be excellent at this). 2) Begin sending resumes out to get back into my profession ASAP. 3) Get a part time job somewhere (eg: convenient store, wal-mart, preferably a non-union place with flexible hours) 4) Apply for unemployment. I don't have enough confidence in the "unemployment" system to depend on it at all. However, the money was forcibly confiscated from me, so I may as well try to get it back. In TVOR, Rand wrote: "The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism". So, in practice, calculate the money taken from you to support the "welfare state", add interest and this is the amount you should be comfortable receiving from the state for restitution. In the meantime, you should continue to oppose and vote against the welfare state. This is not hypocrisy. Demetrius

Your statement struck a nerve with me. I don't really associate with people in the neighborhood very much. I joke with my wife that I've become anti-social (I was very social in college), but the fact of the matter is, I've discovered my values (my daughter, career, keeping in shape) and a relationship with a neighbor is of little value to me if it does not supplement my values. When someone starts talking to me about the Cleveland Browns as if they are the most important thing in the world, I know they are low on my personal value meter. Seriously, I was overjoyed when I found out this forum existed. It's a nice place to visit and know that there are other rational minds out there, because Objectivists seem to be spread thin.

OK. As Praxus said, it's not really immortality and as others have pointed out, there is still the need to earn a living so that you can eat (the need to engage in self-sustaining action) and travel and enjoy life . It looks like the title was enticing enough to get people to comment though. I think lives extended for 200 or 300 years (or more, just imagine) will give people a chance to explore new things and live life on their terms. Imagine working for 30 years, taking 10 years off to travel or dabble in another hobby (perhaps start a business of your own) or write a novel or get a degree in philosophy. People who get bored or depressed could choose to begin aging again or just end their lives peacefully, on their terms, knowing that they've had the chance to live full lives. Heck, I have a Ph.D. and I still have a world of learning ahead of me! Demetrius

Summary: Ray Kurzweil is living healthy so that he can be around in the approximately 20 years it takes for technology to reach the point where it enables humans to live forever. Excerpts from the full article: "Kurzweil writes of millions of blood cell-sized robots, which he calls "nanobots," that will keep us forever young by swarming through the body, repairing bones, muscles, arteries and brain cells. Improvements to our genetic coding will be downloaded via the Internet. We won't even need a heart. " "The claims are fantastic, but Kurzweil is no crank. He's a recipient of the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT prize, which is billed as a sort of Academy Award for inventors, and he won the 1999 National Medal of Technology Award. He has written on the emergence of intelligent machines in publications ranging from Wired to Time magazine. The Christian Science Monitor has called him a "modern Edison." He was inducted into the Inventors Hall of Fame in 2002. Perhaps the MIT graduate's most famous inventions is the first reading machine for the blind that could read any typeface." "During a recent interview in his company offices, Kurzweil sipped green tea and spoke of humanity's coming immortality as if it's as good as done. He sees human intelligence not only conquering its biological limits, including death, but completely mastering the natural world." "Immortality would leave little standing in current society, in which the inevitability of death is foundational to everything from religion to retirement planning. The planet's natural resources would be greatly stressed, and the social order shaken. " "Kurzweil says he believes new technology will emerge to meet increasing human needs. And he said society will be able to control the advances he predicts as long as it makes decisions openly and democratically, without excessive government interference." "In my view, we are not another animal, subject to nature's whim," he said. "His predictions, Kurzweil said, are based on carefully constructed scientific models that have proven accurate. For instance, in his 1990 book, "The Age of Intelligent Machines," Kurzweil predicted the development of a worldwide computer network and of a computer that could beat a chess champion." This is AWESOME in my mind. I would love to live indefinitely. I love to learn new things and hone my skills. This would allow people to master many different disciplines, applying their talents to areas they may never have considered in a short 60 year career. However, I think I am rare. I have a sample size of 1 who said: "I find it comforting that there is an end, I don't want to live forever". This is one person I had pegged as being open minded to this (not religious, believes it's over when we die, loves life). All the mystic nut-jobs can have their "after-life". Me, give me immortality so I can continue to create! Full article is here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_s_immortality

I naively joined Mensa a few years ago, thinking that I'd find some rational, reasonable thinkers. I was incorrect (membership has since lapsed). It's likely that high IQ, in conjunction with an insatiable curiosity and drive to pursue the truth, gave Rand the ability to develop a fully integrated philosophy. It's likely she also had a passion about fighting ideas destructive to freedom. In the context of what she has created, it is irrelevant what her IQ was. Does it matter more what Edison's IQ was or that his inventions revolutionized the world? Demetrius

This may be the only place I can say, without fear of retribution, that Jesus was a communist. Christians claim to be capitalists, but they're not: Have you heard the argument: "If 10 percent is good enough for God, it's good enough for the government." This is how I have heard many Christians defend tax cuts (but only to the 10% level). The problem lies in their starting point for property rights. To an Objectivist, property rights are a manifestation of mans right to his life (and life on earth is his purpose). To a mystical Christian, mans life belongs to God (and life on earth is a test of mans worthiness to enter the kingdom of heaven). It doesn't take much from there to place the good of "society" or "All of Gods children" over that of the individual. Because, after all, "we're all children of God and He has written that we must help one another to be good people, like our savior Jesus Christ". So a good Christian will readily elevate altruistic policies above those that favor the individual. E.g.: Tax money for foreign Aid. Primemover is right on with the "sky daddy" concept. "But without God, you wouldn't have your talented mind... blah blah blah blah blah." If you can stomach it, try tuning into a Christian talk show. I once heard a guest who had written a book about getting out of debt with Jesus or something. It was our responsibility to live within our means so we could give more to churches and charities because that is what Jesus would have wanted. SO you can get rich as long as you use it according to what Jesus preached. Not just to save it up so you can have a nice retirement (like I'm doing, heathen that I am). The extent to which Christians support free market principles covers the spectrum of course, but the fundamental belief that your life and talent are by the grace of God ultimately undermines their embrace of full Laissez-faire at some point. The most free market Christian I knew ultimately asked me one time, "And your life is the result of"?

Thank you both for your suggestions. I will check out that mailing list and the pamphlet. I think my daughter is ahead of the game already. She's definitely got a "personal space" thing and does not like to be around kids that hit and push (my wife remembers the two times she's pushed another child, and that was when she was 1). Alex, Chem E is a tough but rewarding discipline. My wife and I are both Chem Es. Feel free to e-mail me with career questions if you have some. I've seen people go everywhere from medical school to law school with a Chem E BS. Drexel has a good reputation as an engineering school. Do they still require 3 co-ops for graduation? Demetrius

Hello, my name is Demetrius. I’ve been a regular reader of Capitalism Magazine for three years now and just happen to stumble on this forum a few days ago during a Google search. Let me give you a brief philosophical history. When I was growing up, I was forced to attend a Greek Orthodox church. My love for science and truth led me to question everything from the creation of the universe to Jesus’ miracles. In high school I could be described as a moderate with socialist leanings (what can I say, I went to NY State public schools). In college I studied chemical engineering, and would describe myself as a political “moderate”. Upon attending two very liberal graduate schools, I found myself listening more and more to Rush Limbaugh to keep me sane. I could probably be described as a right-winger for a few years of grad school. In the spring of 2000, while attending a technical conference in Monterey, California, I picked up a copy of Atlas Shrugged to read on my flight home. I couldn’t put it down and finished it in 5 days. It was awesome! After that I was hooked. I read The Fountainhead and then dove into Ayn Rands philosophy. I read all the major works: TVOS, P:WNI, C:TUI, FTNI, O:POAR, ROTP, TVOR, NOJ16. By the time I finished my Ph.D. in chem. eng. a year later, I considered myself a full-fledged Laissez-Faire capitalist and student of Objectivism. Upon graduation, I moved to Boise, ID to work in the semiconductor industry. Currently, I’m employed in Ohio as a development engineer for fortune 500 company. In the spirit of a “Healthy Body and a Healthy Mind”, I worship my body every Sunday in the weight room. I’m the father of a wonderful 2.5 yr old girl and my wife and I are trying to raise her to become a rational woman (any advice on responding to grandparents who want to teach about Jesus would be appreciated). In the little free time I have left, I look forward to learning from and contributing to the discussions on this forum. Demetrius

Perhaps it is not being dead, but the fear of the act of dying that is the problem. For example, I hate pain and I would prefer to die peacefully in my sleep rather than tortured by a madman. Since no one is really sure of the how and when of their death, this may be the greatest fear. Perhaps the promise of a peaceful eternity in heaven gives people the courage to face the unknown process of dying. The church does a wonderful job, I think, of playing off of this fear. They preach that your time of death is Gods will and that the greater your suffering in this life, the greater your reward in the kingdom of heaven. This is also an interesting perspective on the objection to "physician assisted suicide". If people have the option to choose the how and the when of their death, that is one less thing "God" has control over in your life. That can't be good for church business. There's got to be a psychological study out there for this. Hasn't it been shown that church attendance increases during uncertain times (as in post-9/11)? I'm an engineer, so this is a bit out of my realm of expertise. Demetrius

First let me say that I'm new to this forum and I hope this post is not out of line. This article just made me angry and extremely sad at the same time. Tsunami Reverts Beaches to Natural State "PATONG BEACH, Thailand - Many believe the tsunami that devastated this tourist hotspot and killed thousands had one positive side: By washing away rampant development, it returned the beaches to nature. " The Beach BEFORE the tsunami: "littered with commercialism"; "swamped by development"; "the beach was littered and the sand was black and dirty". AFTER the tsunami: "the immaculate white sand beach"; "Nature has returned nature to us"; "It was all gone in one wave — it's telling people not to mess with nature," she said. "Paradise should be paradise and should not become this civilized." "We need the quick restoration of the tourist facilities there, but we also have to establish restrictions for building." I can't believe what people are allowed to say in "defense of nature". This is horrible. The press is hostile towards the US government for not giving stolen money away fast enough. Sarcastic when they report on how corporations are giving money "only" as a "PR gig" and reverent when people glorify the "power of nature over man" Every article that reports about the "damage to the coral" or the "lost dolphins" when so many human lives were lost makes me cringe. To value the barren emptiness of a "pristine" beach over that of a bustling, healthy tourist economy is anti-life. Does anyone else sense this sick perversion of values in the tsunami stories? For reference check out: "The Anti-Industrial Revolution" Chapter in Ayn Rands Return of the Primitive (chapter by Peter Schwartz). He hit the nail on the head. Demetrius