Dcyphyr_all_things

..The last page of the book is closed, bruised and bent, like all the pages before - read hard..real hard. The boy reads with a violence. The book hangs limply from his hand, the act of passion finished between his mind and the words. He sits on the couch, its rougher than carpet and seen more dirt, washed so many times its true colors lost. He sits there in defiance of that, of his surroundings. His face whispers innocence, like a young child and angry - like you made him share his toy with a bully. Lyrics stumble through his gorged synapses and trip between his lips, ' i read dead russian authors volumes at a time..'. He laughs without sound and takes off his glasses with his other hand wiping his eyes with his fingers and his fingers (now salty wet) on the faded plaid couch. He thinks, "So some one else knows. This changes everything. To bad she's a russian writer who died the year after you were born." He writes her name- "Ayn Rand". He circles letters, swiches them..writes "And Ryan." "Creepy", he whispers aloud. He puts down the book and stands. He takes the first of many steps..

1.I think he was a navigator. It's pretty much just typing and really, really knowing what your doing - oh yeah, and never making a mistake. 2. If your purpose is to prevent something immoral from being done to you ( discrimination ) it is. Think - Howard Roark demolishing a building without proper permits, etc. 3. I refer you to #1. But then - that is the vital question. However, since typing is apparently the most physical thing he has to do then it might be of little consequence. 4. Colonization? Mining? Exploration for both? - we do. At the end. 5. Someone else answered this. 6. No, just to the orbiting base where deep space launches take place. Wow, I've always said that to people who tell me something can't be done.

I think the opposite to Objectivism isn't god, it's faith. Rightfully condemning that condemns all gods and religions. Those "benefits" that you speak of are a credit account on reality they cannot repay. They may lead productive lives today - but someday, without foundations for them based on reality they will self-destruct. Someday - YOU will be the "Radical" that they must control. You can show them a better way - but don't ever underestimate the destructive power of faith - whether it is in a goverment system's ability to build a levee or a man's decision to fly a plane into a building it always cost more than it's worth.

As I am in landscaping, I find the name quite beautiful, thank you. Don't dishonor it!

lol, You'd be surprised if you knew what we had.. as a taste check out ..hmm, www.kurzweilai.net. There should be something good there.

Ahh! Technology!

You could easily design the chip so that it sences your pulse and nerve impulses and without those - ceases to function. C'mon people - check out www.kurzweilai.net. It's amazing - we have the philosophy this tech needs and they have the tech that would make our lives so much more pleasurable.

I do not care whether taxes are legal. I care that they are immoral. Morality creates law, not the other way around. When morality is taken from the law, moral men become outlaws. It is said that any Moral goverment would be free to take over a goverment that commits atrocities upon it's people. Is THIS a Moral Country? Ayn Rand said that in it's founding principles that America was a moral country. If taxation isn't moral and was a part of the founding principles then how can this be true?

hmm, Ever heard of Paul Wakfer (spelling?). He is really committed to the idea of a proper foundation and has done quite a bit of work - www.morelife.org. Look for the self-sovereign page. It definitely deserves some study in my opinion - read through it.

YES

Her first advice was quite good. It's all a good idea. But the question would remain - Why is it a good idea? The rational mind is the only thing able to overcome emotional fallacies, I have found. (Note, this is a ref to original thread, from which this one was split. - softwareNerd)

In the face of lies, not speaking can be the greatest harm you can do to those seeking truth. I HAVE BEEN in his situation. I would agree with Peikoff's observations. However harsh the truth may be, the effects of denying it are far harsher.

In fact, if anyone here has that searchable database of her work, maybe they could post her character descriptions on this thread and then we could really get to work on our daydreaming.

We really should go thru and read everywhere Rand gives descriptions of her characters. For instance - F.D. has blue eyes. John Galts hair wasn't staight blond either. etc.

Good advice from many there. I've been thru the same scenario (even with religion being a difference between us) and My advice is most of all realize that your life is more important than your lives together! Whatever you do to get thru - this remember : If you don't do anything to get thru the loss, your not worthy of the goal. Anyone not willing to face failure doesn't deserve success. While this may seem to be saying you should do what you can to get her back, that is the opposite of what I mean. The goal is your happiness. -NOT "your happiness together". Many thoughts are filling your mind I'd bet. They did mine. It may help to write all this out for yourself to achieve clarity. Organize your thoughts and then judge your conclusions. You'll probaly continue adding new things for a long time.lol It can help prevent "crowing out" and free your mind from losing focus on You and Your Life!

Galt less than ideal? Galt was the first to apply those principles to his life and not only recognize the problem, but find a solution to it. It was he who told F.D. what the their mutual beliefs should entail their actions be, not the other way around. Galt had to convince HIM. No matter how drastically blatant the evidence, convincing another that drastic action is needed and possible is quite difficult. What is more difficult, however, is being the first to know it. To know the truth for what it is, IS to accept all that its knowledge can cost you and know that it is worth it. If you doubt in any way his importance and that he represented a true paradigm shift consider this.- America today is worse than than at the start of A.S. yet no one among us, it seems, is willing to face that at some point, there will be no rational reason left to save her. If you think he was less than ideal, imagine what he would have to be to do what he did, today. I find it more difficult to see how dagny was worthy of him than the other way around. I find your theory quite decent but I can't see how it could lead to thinking galt was less than ideal. I would like to contribute this to your theory- they all boil down to #3. In #1 the insufficiency is perceptiveness of at least one party. If someone isn't capable of seeing the value of someone (given enough evidence) they don't deserve them. Also, if someone isn't capable of presenting enough evidence they don't deserve their objective. In #2 The insufficiency isn't of perceptiveness but what perceptiveness was meant to perceive - Value. Values are what it boils down to, and "sufficient" may not even be the right word to describe their relationship to the involved parties. Some one must BE a value - not just a disvalue. I suppose you must have a sufficient definition of sufficient.

I Like It.

I do not think the U.S. Goverment is ever going allow us to bring back gold. It's just one sign of the systemic flaw. It's constitution is flawed, hence it will fail. Change the constitution, and you now have a different goverment. Which means revolution.

The Ghost in the Shell series is one of the most deeply philosophic movies I have ever seen. I have been fascinated with it since I first saw it many years ago, and have seen every one of the series and sequel. I would love to do an intense study of the movie to iron out its philosophy better. It's a great example of lengthy philosophic dialogue incorporated into an engrossing movie without becoming boring. Something we should consider if ever A.S. out T.F. Our even Anthem are taken to film. Has anyone here studied it? Any opinions? I'd do the same to the Vampire Hunter D series and Blood: the last vampire (wheres my sequel!!) and Battle Angel Alita -(will be movie soon!).

Hmm, Do you want private ownership of the rights to the land under the water or the water itself also? If someone has rights to the water in their river they could easily sell it and then all you would have is dry stream bed.

To everyone who has helped make this idea more clear, I would like to extend my thanks. You are awesome, and your ideas for a proper funding of any goverment deserve much applause. Finally, we aren't saying - How should the goverment be paid for? - Somehow. However, I face a new difficulty which I can see a few roads thru but would like your opinion on. Explain to me, why any Objectivists would want to be in Objectivist goverment? Seriously. Give me one compelling reason to govern you. How can I get rich as a policeman or soldier or judge? If I can't -Why should I spend my productive time defending a system that doesn't reward me for my time? As goverment, I alone am not allowed to raise my price to reflect flux in my costs or value. Sure, I'm a monopoly - but that doesn't provide an encentive for a rational producer like me. See, you can't just merely show the system is profitable to those who agree to it, it must be profitable to those who Are it. I can, perhaps, think of a few limited responses to this. However I'd like to pose the question to you in case I've overlooked an obvious solution. Thank you all ahead of time for any ideas on this.

Give it time.

Brad Pitt played Tyler Durdan in fight club. How "ironic" would it be he play John Galt. I like C. Bale much better, really. Also, I don't think that even a trilogy would be able to do A.S. justice. How about a TV show. They want contraversy, lol, we'll give'em contraversy.