Ana

There is a point I didn't notice while reading the post, and I think is important. There are two kinds of taxes. One kind is what the government takes away from you and uses as it sees fit, that is, redistributes it, presumably according to needs. Such a tax is the income tax, for example. The other one consists of taxes with specific destinations, such as unemployment tax or social security tax, which is also redistributed, but then again, the very principle of any insurance of any kind, is redistribution. In my opinion, the first kind of tax is theft and taking any of that money is accessory to theft. Examples of such money are subsidies for underdeveloped areas. The second kind of tax can be assimilated to an insurance monopoly, in the meaning that I, on my free will, might want to pay unemployment, or social security, for whatever reasons, only I wish I could pay the money to a company of my choice, not to the monopoly established by the government. These taxes are from my point of view as immoral as - let's say - the electrical power bill is, since the electrical power provider has a monopoly where I live. In the case of these taxes, the problem lies with the fact that a monopoly exists, not with wether you benefit from a service you are paying for, regardless of the amount that is returned to you.

If you're living in feudal times, for example, there is no police. If I remember correctly, during those times, the closest thing there were to police, was the royal / imperial guard, dealing with issues at the court. As for the countryside, there was no law enforcement institution, just judges (usually the mayor or the elderly). In this case, theoretically speaking, you could be a warrior just as you could be a butcher, since the state provides with no police institution - a warrior would be just another job. If the police doesn't do its job, you could be a warrior as part of a privately owned security company -- but then again, you'd only be a warrior because the state institution doesn't exist / is immoral. In this case, you'd have limited powers: you couldn't hold someone captive, and you couldn't kill someone who tries to escape you. Finally, if the case were about some totalitarian regime, the term would not apply, as you would probably decide not to recognize the regime, thus leaving you with anarchy. However, in a capitalistic society, the general assumption is that the police exists, and does its job -- and if it doesn't do its job, you have a way of getting someone to sack the policeman who didn't do his job -- therefore, there is no need of 'independent' warriors, since the institution in charge of protecting values is functioning properly.

I am doing most of the reading on the computer, for various reasons. I noticed my reading speed is higher on printed texts. However, since most of the reading is on the screen, I would be interested in computer specific ways to improve speed. I have made some observations: - the display counts a lot - it is easier to read on 4:3 display rather than 16:10 display - Tahoma and Verdana fonts are much easier to read than Times New Roman for example - I read web pages easier if I use pgup pgdn, rather than mouse wheel (with mouse wheel I miss the line I was at when scrolling) - Word documents are faster to read with the Read option in Word 2003 (there are 2 screens on the display and since displays are wide, I don't need to move the eyes while reading - the point was made before on the topic) - I read faster if spacing between lines is larger Maybe there are other tips as well for improving reading speed on the computer?

the nickname is Gabriel. i found him while searching the forum for the keyword "romania". his messages are dated last year. i understand he's studying economics in bucharest. none that i know of. i too found that translation of anthem at the university library in bucharest. the other printed item that i know of is a 40 page presentation of ayn rand in an issue of 1996 of a publication named krisis edited by students from the literature dept in the univ of bucharest. i found it searching google for "ayn rand obiectivism" -- with i instead of j. i don't have a hard copy of that though. finally, i had a chat about two years ago with someone at humanitas publishing house, asking if there be any chance to publish atlas shrugged or the fountainhead, given 2005 is 100 since ayn rand was born. they didn't say no back then, but didn't say yes either. so i am assuming if more people send feedback to them, it just might happen.

another approach on smoking [and drugs]: smoking cripples your ability to be productive. i am a chain smoker and i can see people who don't smoke do better than i. so i would say smoking, as well as doing drugs is a way to give up your ability to be productive, that is, to create value. of course it could be argued that one can smoke of drink or do drugs during one's free time. but then that would mean that one is just killing time instead of making use of it. after all time (life) is our one biggest asset. regarding the initial question about smoking being or not percieved as a danger: during the second world war soldiers in my country received aside from ammunition, clothes, food and payment, a daily ratio of two packs of non filter cigarettes. that was the perception on smoking back then. it is true that 1957 is 10 years after the 2nd world war ended, but is also some 50 years ago, so i'd say the remarks on smoking in atlas shrugged had nothing to do with the drug issue. it was simply that they hadn't figured out smoking damages health and the ability to be productive back then.

hi there, i noticed there is someone else from romania on this forum i read ayn rand's books a while ago and they changed many of my ideas and beliefs. will hang around for a while before posting, to read the existing topics. just to introduce myself, i am 26, i live in romania, i graduated engineering and my work is IT related. my favorite ayn rand character is hank rearden.