gags

Ok. Makes sense. How about to raise the money necessary for a national defense. Did she address that specifically?

Did she really? Then how would one fund a government for which she saw a legitimate role?

I'm not aware that she has made her positions known on anything other than foreign policy. Maybe others know more than I, but I haven't seen her even take a public stance on most domestic political issues. Let's face it, the conventional choices are fairly depressing.

I'm curious, would you mind providing some details about this ghost you saw? Was it in the form of a person? Did it speak? What were the circumstances under which you saw this thing and who else was there with you? Also, I don't think science assumes that we know everything about reality and the world around us. In order to accept science, there doesn't have to be an assumption of infalibity. There are things which science cannot yet explain, but I don't think that's an indictment of science or scientific methods of research. Perhaps we simply don't yet know enough about various phenomena and energy forms.

I've found that fear of failure is very debilitating. Simply thinking positively can be helpful. However, when you are confronting a particularly difficult situation, taking a step back and contemplating the worst possible scenario is also a useful technique. What you often find is that an outcome you imagine to be very bad, really isn't all that bad. Even if the worst happens, life will continue (assuming you're not confronting a life or death situation) and you can recover from temporary setbacks. I guess this is fairly similar to what JMSnow described.

Both parties are so busy "running to the middle" that it's hard to tell them apart. However, I doubt either will disappear. There is just too much momentum behind their existence. The Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years or so and the Republicans didn't go away. Besides, Queen Hillary is going to win in 2008, causing a great revival of the Democratic Party. Oh, the horror.....

Yes, and you've confused me as well.

That's an important distinction that I haven't made before. Certain pieces of furniture are clearly artistic, but they may not necessarily be art. The same would be true for cars and glassware, etc... Thank you. That makes a great deal of sense.

OK, thanks.

Rich, thank you for posting your essay. I enjoyed it. I've been curious for some time about the question of what exactly is "art". I have a few questions for you or anyone else who cares to discuss them. Then following from Rand's definition, I assume it would be possible for some work to objectively qualify as "art", even though it portrays reality according to a metaphysical judgment with which we might disagree? This question of what is art and what is craft is a fairly hot topic in the woodworking community. I'm an amateur woodworker who has built a bunch of cabinets and furniture for my home. I'm semi-skilled at the craft, but I would never call any of my works "art". However, there are woodworkers who claim to create "furniture as art". For example, one artist makes chairs that are built in such a way that nobody could ever sit in them. They are either upside down, or the seat is tilted at a wild angle, or there are sharp spikes protruding from the chair back and the seat, etc.... Not only do these "chairs" lack any functionality, but they're also hideous in my opinion. Nevertheless, someone buying one of these pieces would clearly be purchasing it as art, not as a chair. Is it valid to call this "art" in accordance with Rand's definition? Certainly I would agree that in order for something to be art, it requires skillful craft. Some highly skilled woodworkers make furniture with intricate patterns of contrasting wood or other materials inlaid into their surfaces. This "Intarsia" is essentially painting a picture using small pieces of inlaid wood. It is very difficult and can be quite beautiful, if done the right way. Nevertheless, I still have a problem calling this "art". To me, it remains furniture with a nicely inlaid pattern. It's beautifully done, but it's still a chest of drawers or a dining room table or a kitchen cabinet. These things are all primarily functional pieces, not art. Can art also be functional, or does it simply have to be something that is beautiful in its own right, with little or no functionality? On the other hand, is it possible to take mundane, everyday objects and apply such skill to their creation and make them so beautiful that they become art?

I'm not aware of these studies and the "science" behind them. How would one objectively come to such conclusions? Perhaps you can give me a link or cite one? Also, I just saw on the news that a young boy who appears to be of Indian (from India, not "Native American") descent just won the national spelling bee. Over the years, I've noticed that many of the finalists in these competitions tend to be Indians. You might ask the Racists if this means that Indians have some sort of superior spelling gene not possessed by white people? I doubt it. It would seem that culture, an emphasis on learning from an early age, and mental discipline play much more important roles than genetics, when it comes to winning spelling bees.

I can certainly see where you're coming from. Until I purchased a house, I really wasn't aware that in this country landowners simply rent their property from the government. If you don't pay their rent (in the form of outrageous property taxes), they'll take away your land and your home. Oh, and if you're foolish enough to improve your property, they increase the rent. It's quite a system.

Not to pile on here, but your idea about requiring prospective parents to take a psychiatric test is a stunningly bad one, IMO. Who would administer such a test? How would it be designed to produce objective results? What would society do with parents who fail the test, but still have children? The whole thing sounds very totalitarian as well as impractical.

Great article.

What sort of "preventative measures" might be taken? Child abuse is a crime that is usually hidden and sometimes very difficult to detect. It's easy to blame "societal indifference" for abuse, however I don't see what preventive options we might have that aren't being employed currently. Perhaps you know of some?

Those are valid points along the lines of something I was getting at. You did it more clearly and succinctly. BTW, the primary principle behind insurance is risk mitigation, not redistribution.

You might find this thread to be interesting reading: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ildren%20rights

The Jensen essay was disgusting. I see that it also appeared in a number of radical environmentalist publications including "The Earth First! Journal" and others. Rand's book, "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution" deals with these people rather well. This crowd values plant life over human life and their worship of the "Noble Savage" is simply an extension of their anti-intellectual tendencies.

I don't see a moral problem with the proposition that someone who is willing to take another person's life (assuming there are no mitigating circumstances) should have to forfeit his own life. Here's a more provocative question: Should serial (more than one actual conviction) child molesters be given the death penalty? In many cases, child molesters literally destroy the lives of their young victims, causing them to have serious psychological problems for many years to come. Furthermore, there seems to be little evidence that hard-core molesters can ever be cured or rehabilitated. Most of them continue to harbor their desires after being punished, and their recidivism rates are quite high. Even molesters who were chemically castrated have been known to repeat their offenses. Given the incurable nature of pedophiles as well as the terrible impact of their crimes, I'd like to see serial molesters given the death penalty.

Are you making a distinction between a moral right and a legal right?

Not important, but assuming roughly 300 million people in the US, wouldn't that be about $1,558 per man woman and child? A volunteer military helps in that people who join are generally motivated and enthusiastic. However, we had quite a bit of military success even when there was a draft. I think you and Jmegan (who is almost always brilliant) are closest to the answer to a complex question. However, there are many other considerations. Technology, strategy, morale, luck..... all enter the equation. Early on, the Nazis were quite successful militarily, despite being led by a madman who despised reason. It isn't a widely known fact, but the combined Allied forces arrayed against the Germans at the time of the Battle of France (in 1940) were generally numerically and technologically superior to Hitler's forces. It was Hitler's bold plan of attack combined with Allied strategic paralysis that caused France to fall in less than a month. Having a technologically and numerically superior force doesn't necessarily guarantee succes. Ernest May wrote an interesting book about this entitled "Strange Victory - Hitler's Conquest of France".

I'm very light on knowledge of Kant. How does he come to such a conclusion?

You don't pay a food stamp tax, but you do pay an unemployment tax for that specific benefit. Given that the top 10% of wage earners pay about 65% of all Federal Income Taxes, then the vast majority of Americans are recipients of stolen funds. The politicians want it that way. You can just send the money directly to me. I'll make sure it gets to the correct parties. Perhaps, but if one is taking from the NEA or getting a stadium subsidy, one is also giving the thieving politicians an excuse to perpetuate their game. They can point to all of the money given away in the form of NEA grants and stadium subsidies and say "See how we fullfilled the tremendous need for NEA grants and stadium subsidies." "There is such a strong demand for these programs, they must be continued and even expanded." "Of course we'll need to raise taxes to pay for these very important programs........"

I agree that in terms of morality, the difference you point out is important.

I don't argue that the unemployment tax is a just tax or that it doesn't redistribute income. However, it seems to be slightly more just than many of the other taxes we are forced to pay. At least this tax is put into a special fund that pays benefits only to those who have actually paid for unemployment insurance. Since government funds in general are coerced, then anyone who receives government money is the recipient of stolen funds? If that's the case, then in a welfare state like the current one, there isn't an innocent person in America. Forget the road and sidewalk example. If you go to the grocery store and buy milk, you're the beneficiary of a government subsidy provided through the use of coerced funds. If you use a cell phone, you are the beneficiary of technology originally developed by the government using coerced funds. The examples are almost endless. Again, I see it as a matter of degree. We're all made guilty by this welfare state, some of us more than others. I was simply pointing out that the artist who has paid taxes for years and uses this as justification for obtaining a grant, has actually paid very little toward funding the NEA.