NIJamesHughes

As a rational CEO for a nuclear company would you sell nuclear weopons to anyone? Why even produce them? The only market for them is very limited. And a US companies market is even more limited. I would say that the problem could be solved by the manufactures themselves.

Its a pretty fun game. Here is my nation: The Republic of UtopiaofGreed "Give me freedom or give me death!" UN Category: Capitalist Paradise Civil Rights: Excellent Economy: Thriving Political Freedoms: Some Location: United Capitalist States The Republic of UtopiaofGreed is a small, economically powerful nation, remarkable for its absence of drug laws. Its hard-nosed, hard-working population of 14 million are either ruled by a small, efficient government or a conglomerate of multinational corporations; it's difficult to tell which. There is no government in the normal sense the word; however, a small group of community-minded, pro-business individuals is mainly concerned with Law & Order, although Commerce and Defence are on the agenda. Income tax is unheard of. A powerhouse of a private sector is led by the Uranium Mining, Arms Manufacturing, and Retail industries. Citizens can be frequently spotted going about their business stark naked, employers may fire workers without giving any reason, surveillance cameras are banned, and thieves are flogged in public for their crimes. Crime is pervasive. UtopiaofGreed's national animal is the turkey, which teeters on the brink of extinction due to widespread deforestation, and its currency is the dollar. UtopiaofGreed is ranked 1st in the region and 66,130th in the world for Largest Automobile Manufacturing Sector.

What I meant was police cameras, such as on stop lights and in public places.

is it right for a goverment to video tape its citizens? I know that in a purely capitalist society there wouldn't even be this question, because all property would be private, BUT.. as it stands today is there anything immoral about government video taping?

I agree that time and space are measurements.

You could put the objectivist "talk show" on the public access channel like the satanists have done. It doesn't cost anything to show and very little to make.

"Personally, I prefer this flat style to a newsgroup style bbs. It makes conversations easier to follow. However, a good compromise (not really a compromise, though) is to use the Yahoo! style - each post will have a "reply to this" button, say, and each post will have a note at the bottom saying "in reply to post #XX"; the default view will still be flat, in chronological order of posts, but the user has the option of viewing the forum as a tree of subject-line links. (That of course would necessitate adding a subject line.) " Yeah, something like that was what I had in mind.

As a door to door salesperson, I deal with contracts on a daily basis. One of the most annoying aspects of the process is dealing with what is called "buyers remorse." Buyers remorse itself isn't that bad, what is devastating is that the government requires a three day cancelation period for products above a certain price (i don't know what the price is, but the Kirby, costing $1895 is in that range). Now what happens is our salespeople demonstrate these home care systems in the buyers home which takes an average of 1 and a half hours (plus gas and giftcards and carpet shampoo) and the people decide to buy, the contract is signed, we leave a machine with them and then leave. What happens is sometimes people "buy" the thing and clean like hell with it for three days and then because of regulations the can legally forfeit the payments of have their money returned, and we get back a used dirty machine. Contracts should be final. If there is a cancelation period it should be at the producers will, not the governments.

Is there any way that we could reply to the individual posts, instead of just anding to the list? I was looking for a way to thread the posts, but i couldn't find one.. Have you ever considered this? Thanks! James Hughes

It certainly isn't reasonable to harm an animal for no reason And the question of if it is "morally actionable" can be answered like this: Is it Your animal? if so, yes (your right to property). If not, why does it matter to you? do you lose anything? The case of wild animals is determined by whose property it is and if they care.

Only individuals have rights. The only rights they have are Life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Some of the "rights" that the ACLU defend are: Disability Rights Immigrants Rights Lesbian & Gay Rights Reproductive Rights Rights of the Poor Students Rights Voting Rights Women's Rights Being a part of any group doesn't give anyone any special "rights." Invariably these other "rights" infringe on actual individual rights.

As far as concepts go; I don't think so. They are the primary concepts with a direct connection to precepts. Nothing can be decuded from them because nothing preceeds them.

causality can be deduced back to identity and then to existence. Causality is an axiom but it isn't fundamental in the sense that EIC are, because it can be reduced (deduced) but existence, identity and consciousness, can not.

If President Bush can earn $55 million by september 5th for his political campaign, I am positive the entire government could earn enough in donations to support the army, police and civil courts, not to mention, the money mad from prices paid for the services proved by the government.

Sorry about that.. I'll try to be more judicious with my searches from now on.

Wouldn't it be correct to say that No Knowledge could be deduced from the axioms? The 3 axioms ("EIC" for shortness) are primaries, the base of all concepts, so it is logical that nothing is deduced from them; the only way to travel would be up.

I agree, my definition is from a distinctly human stand point. In regards to a different race, the methodology may be different, but the fundamentals are the same: time isn't an independently existing entity, its a system of measurement (of whatever).

doesn't all knowledge rest on those three axioms?

Ayn Rand has said that all knowledge is hiearchial, and that the three axioms of existence are the fundamentals of all knowledge. Does it follow then that all knowledge can be deduced to the axiom of existence? wouldn't contradict the assumption that you can't deduce all the ideas in a system to the axioms of the system? Again, I don't know much about Goedel's theorum, so if I'm being assumptive, please forgive me.

The key term in this discussion is "forced taxation." Whether or not it is moral or not to pay taxes, it is forced; you have no option. You CAN avoid income taxes, but for anyone who lives in a city, you can not avoid sales tax. The fact of whether or not it is moral to pay taxes in that circumstance is irrelevent, because we all have a gun at our heads.

I hope that noone takes offense to this( particulartly the owner of the forum), but I have a few suggestions to offer up for consideration. You might break the "philosophy" section up into seperate sections for Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Art. A section for Scientific discussion would, I think, be useful. It might be useful to add a section for Questions about Objectivism and Ayn Rand in a seperate section to keep that type of material away from the philosophic discussions. Then add a general section, and I think that there would be a complete catagorical system for the placement of all the posts It might look something like this: General Metaphysics Epistemology Ethics Politics Art Science Questions I hope this is helpful

Hi, My name is James Hughes. I live in Arkansas, and I am an independent salesperson from Kirby Enterprises. I've read most of Ayn Rand's books, and both of Leonard Piekoff's works. I learned about Ayn Rand through Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan (a philosophy which claims rational self-interest in ethics). After discovering Ayn Rand, I divorced myself from that movement, and have been preparing a critical essay about it. I am interested in philosophy, psychology, science, and capitalism. My favorite fiction book by Miss Rand is "The Fountainhead," and my favorite nonfiction book is "The Virtue of Selfishness." I am interested in volunteering for this forum, depending upon what that entails, of course. This looks like a great forum, and I hope to be a productive member of it.

"Time" as an entity doesn't exist. Time is a measurement of the rotation of the earth (the break-down from day, to hour, to minute, to second), the revolution of the earth around the sun( the break-down from year, to month, to day) and the revolution of the moon around the earth (specifically months). This is why "time travel" is not valid; there is no "time" to travel through. Time is not "pure change" but a progression of mathematical precision.

Property rights are such because they are a condition for the survival of human beings. To live a man must work. To benefit from "work" he must keep that which he has produced. If he is denied that he, essential, is denied the work of his mind and thus, his mind itself. As a rational animal if he is denied his mind, he is denied his life. Property is the product generated by the work of mans -each individual man's- mind and effort.

Some say that Goedel's theorum disproves Ojectivism as a complete sysytem, as Dr. Peikoff states. Does anyone know anything about that?