plaintext

Felicity & PennDrago: Both very inspiring stories. There's a humorous article on the "Joel On Software" site that talks about how many IT employers say they are taking only the top 1% of programmers: because, for instance, they get 100 resumes for every job-opening. Who is hiring the other 99%!

TorturedOne: Libertarian sites don't interest me. I'm looking for liberal sites where the audience would typically vote democrat. TommyEdison: Thanks for the link. I'm not too knowledgeable about the science parts, but the other areas look "promising".

The battle is a battle of ideas. Many crucial ideas of the left are accepted as beyond argument by a large segment of the public.... aspects of environmentalism, multiculturalism... Surely there must be some place these are discussed seriously?

*** Mod's note: Merged topic sN *** The issue: what to do when deciding between what is legal versus what is right. One side favors doing what one thinks is right. The other side favors doing what is legal. The context is important. In this forum, neither side is advocating cooperating with laws in a dictatorship, nor even in a fairly socialist country. The context for the discussion is a "mostly free" country. "As long as one has the freedom to protest the law, one should obey it." The other side is not advocating blatant disobedience, but "if you can get away with it". The idea is: do the moral thing without being sacrificial (obviously!). Both sides appear to agree that sometimes there is a conflict of interest between legality and morality. Is this true? Or, is there a different way to look at it: in that the apparent conflict is not real? The "rule-of-law" case is simple: If everyone decides to do what they think is right, that leads to anarchy. So, if one steps back from the particular individual case and looks at the broader picture, then one sees that sticking to what is legal is the moral thing to do. As for trying to "get away with it", you cannot consistently do so. Therefore sticking to the law is both moral and practical. Protest the law, but continue to obey it. The "decide for yourself" case is simple: One must act justly, even if doing so is not legal. One cannot seek broad justice in society by denying justice to specific individuals in specific cases. Protest the law, but don't obey immoral laws except under duress. Is that the best summary of both sides? I have seen the discussion about the rule of law come up in discussions about immigration and taxes. What are other situations where this issue comes up? Is it an important decision for each of us to make? I'd like to hear from others before I put my own thoughts down. However, for full disclosure, I am not completely convinced by either argument, mostly because I suffer the problem of "seeing something right in both arguments". Today, if I had to decide, I would tend to the "decide for yourself" camp. Warning: It is probably illegal to advocate disobeying the law. Consider yourself warned!

I'm curious if there are any liberal forums on the internet where serious discussion takes place. If anyone knows of some, I'd be curious to investigate them. I'm not interested in places with a lot of "flame wars". The best way I can put it is to say that I'm looking for the liberal equivalent (as far as that is possible) of this forum: a place where people take ideas seriously. Are there more conservative than liberal blogs on the internet? or am I not searching in the right places? A search reveals a lot of liberal-oriented web-sites, but I am interested in discussion-sites. In my judgement, posting a liberal-link in this forum is not going to change minds for the audience here. Still, if you prefer, send me links my PM.

In the case of Eddie and Dagny, it was not an issue of two irreplaceable parts of a team. Dagny could easily have done Eddie's job. Eddie could not have done Dagny's.

It is not clear what you find faulty. Is it the proposition that government is required to secure individual rights? Is it that such a government needs to be well-funded? Or, both? Or, are you implying that a well-funded government does not necessitate taxation?

This thread morphed from a discussion on politics to one on concepts. My response to the original poster is that the label "political prosoner" is a valid one to describe certain types of prisoners in countries that are not free. These are prisoners who have not been put in jail even though they did not violate any rights. Nor are they there because of a mistake by the judicial system. They are in jail because they spoke out against the government. I would not include any prisoner who is in jail because of non-objective laws. I would not include many people in the US who are serving for non-violent drug-related crimes. They are not in jail because they spoke out against the government or the law.

Though George Bernard Shaw was a Fabian socialist (read "bad guy in my book"), I've found some of his writing to be intelligent and thought provoking. The best example of this that I have read is his short story titled "The Adventures of the Black Girl in her Search for God". A girl, dissatisfied with the answers her missionary provides, walks out into the wilderness seeking god. In a sequence of short scenes she meets various people, some claim to be god and others offer alternate philosophies. It is satire, so you can expect many questions but few answers but then, as Objectivists, we know the fundamental answer). I first read the book about twenty years ago and just started reading it again (Amazon -- used books). I would recommend it to anyone who wants to be a professional philosopher, but also if you just want a laugh. PS (warning): If you search on Amazon, be warned that there are a few more modern books with nearly identical titles.

This idea -- whether there can be a conflict between respect the law and respect for individual rights -- has cropped up in other threads. I know where my allegiance lies, but I cannot add anything new to the debate. Rather, I'd like to ask if anyone here can provide references to any of Ayn Rand's writing that addresses the issue. Apart from her written work, surely a question like this must have come up in some lecture. Does anyone know?

Ms. Snow never implied it was a problem. - P. Text

The idea of "Democracy" (originally as opposed to commonly-practiced monarchy) is "government by the people". Democracy treats the idea of "majority rule" as primary. Actually, the idea of individual rights is a more important politcal principle. Protecting the "minority" that is the individual from the powerful "majority".

Have you read any books by Julian Simon? I think his book titled "The Ultimate Resource" addresses the issue of shortage/abundance of natural resources. In summary: if one takes a long-term perspective, there are enough raw-materials for mankind to live well for many centuries to come. Having said that, however, there *are* supply issues. First, there are short to medium term issues. For instance, it takes time to ramp up oil production, to build refineries, ships and pipelines. So, if demand outstrips the forecasts, prices can rise. Also, there are the many laws that either limit the ability to produce (e.g. areas where drilling is not allowed) or raise the price of resources (I think ARB has some books about this). Have you heard of oil from shale? This has fascinated me ever since Ayn Rand mentioned this in an essay. There are companies in Canada that use this method. It costs more than it cost the Saudis for a barrel, but there is no "shortage". At some price more oil can be produced than the world can use. The scary part of your post was that you saw this propoganda in a physics book, and in college! I'm speechless.

I cannot resist saying that this is the direction any "consumption tax" will also take in an altruist society. The government does this because many citizens see it as "sort of reasonable".

GC: Thank you for this great forum. In contrast to places like a.p.o and h.p.o it is an oasis of calm and thoughtfulness.

Rational One... I suggest you go to the Search option in the forum and look for "Michigan" and "Detroit". Doing so, I found the following memebrs who appear to be in Michigan: andrew, bowzer, bardjmal, moral_free, eetest01, nimble, drsm, pcm. That's 8 just here. Add EGO and the UofM club and you've got the makings on a little state already! All the best.

The ARI site has a link to the U of M Objectivist group. Also, (found by web search... this is not a positive referral): There is also a group called The EGO Group that meets in "South East Michigan". If I'm right, that's probably around Detroit, or at least driving distance. There must also be many Michigan folk on this forum and the chances are that many will be near a large city like Detroit. The member's directory has locations. I checked -- there is no way to search by location. Yet, if you're serious, you can start checking a certain number of entries each day. Good luck in meeting like-minded Objectivists.

The first time I saw an idea like the "Free State" one, I was intrigued and read more about it. Over time, however, I have come to the conclusion that these plans are of two types: either they are unrealistic, or they are money-gathering scams. (BTW: There are also non-objectivists with the same idea -- e.g., go live separately on a commune.) If you live in the USA (or even many other countries) the "real world" offers many advantages and amenities that make one's life comfortable and buys one time. One misses talking to rational folks. That is why I asked about any nearby Objectivist groups. If you would be willing to post your city (or even your State) in a thread on the "Introductions" forum, and invite nearby folks to meet, you might be pleasantly surprized at the number of objectivists who live near you. Practically, its a good idea to socialize (in person) with a good cross-section of objectivists before you decide you want to go set up a country with them.

Rational One: Are there any objectivist groups in your city? Are you a member?

As an average, people in Islamic countries are less educated and are less demanding of their individual freedom than people in Christian countries. People in Hindu countries are somewhere in between. However: Christianity and Islam have nothing to do with this. If anything, Christianity holds the west back. As for the Islaminc world, many people there seek freedom. The blog run by "Chrenkoff" has many items on changes in the muslim world.

Gold has been the subject of at least one previous thread: Is Gold Catching On I think there are better places to invest money.

Thanks for the ref... here is a quote from Ayn Rand's essay: "...my own view of what is called "hard core" pornography. I regard it as unspeakably disgusting... ... I regard [sex] as good, ..., too important to be made the subject of public anatomical display."

We seem to be reaching agreement about the genus, but not the differentia. I have a problem with using the purpose as a distinguishing characteristic. For instance, one poster made the point that sexually-explicit photographs may not be porn (and pointed to a site to illustrate the point). If a web-master were to copy those to a typical pay-for-view porn site, would that make it porn? If we do not consider purpose, we might give the impression that some photographs in medical texts are porn. So -- now -- I do think that purpose is part of the definition, but part of the genus rather than the differentia. How about this: "Pornography is media generated with the primary purpose of generating sexual arousal ____ ___ which does so in a malevolent way"

Following up on drsm's post, I think "sexual arousal" would belong in the genus rather than the differentia. Also, I'm not sure is "entertainment" is the correct word for the genus, could "art" be closer. I'm still thinking through the differentia, but I think I'm close to the genus when I say: "Pornography is sexually-explicit art that _______" Some half-form thoughts regarding the differentia... "____ that portrays a sex as a purely physical activity devoid of mind"

Megan, A resume is like an advertisement. You must highlight aspects of yourself (abilities and experience) that are relevant to the employer. The best resume is also tailored for each prospective employer. This does not mean you lie. It means you highlight what is relevant for that employer. For example, suppose you know French & Spanish. Suppose that knowledge of French is important to a particular employer who has business dealings in Montreal. Your resume must show convincingly that you are good at French. You might mention Spanish in passing, too. On the other hand, if a second employer deals with Mexico and requires people who know Spanish, you would spend more time demonstrating your grasp of Spanish. This is not subjective, you are recognizing the reality that a employer is looking for something specific and you explain why you are qualified. The things that the employer is not looking for are not important in the context of the resume. Next, let me address your specific example of "teamwork skills". First, almost everyone making a resume includes some boiler-plate-like text about how they work so hard, or are good team players, or are leaders, and so on. In general, such thing are usually ignored by recruiters. However, consider a different aspect: is the ability to work in a team important? have you had experiences with people who have held their teams back? is there a sense in which team-work is a requirement for the job? if so, in what sense? and, how can you demonstrate that you meet the bill? As for Human Relations departments, they usually do not care about "soft and fuzzy" things like whether the resume says you are a team-player. The HR person usually knows less about the job than the hiring manager. They tend to focus on the written requirement that they get from the hiring manager. In practice, HR people tend to be "keyword driven". Taking the example above, they will search for the word "French" or "Spanish" respectively. The most important part of getting a job happens before you have written your resume: you have to understand what the employer is looking for. (This is easier said than done, but you need to do it to the best of your ability. Read up about the company. Try to hunt down any acquantance who might know more about the company and the job. You can even call HR and speak to someone, to clarify what they are looking for. The best sales person always finds out as much as he can about what the customer is looking for, before he can make his pitch.) Also, if your research shows you are not a fit, then you can move on. Next you tailor your sales-message to the people who will filter it. HR will look at the resume and decide whether to pass it on. So, it needs to have what HR will look for -- mainly, the right key words and formal qualifications. Finally, it must have what the hiring manager is looking for. At all stages, continue to learn more about the job. Also, always assume that the people doing the hiring are acting rationally; but, do not dismiss things like "team work" without thinking them through first. I wish you well.