Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Strangelove

Regulars
  • Posts

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Strangelove

  1. At the kind of economic tier we are talking about, these differences are rather slight. Also this is a measure of economic freedom, not political freedom, which is why Singapore is doing so well on that list. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/...id=Unitedstates Remeber, low scores are better! Now how about our friends in the "Socialist" UK? Here is a quick summary of scores. Both nations got eqaul scores for trade policy - US=2, UK=2 Both nations got equal socres for fiscal burden - US=3.9, UK=3.9 The UK's score for Government intervention was higher - US= 2.0, UK=2.5 Both scored the same for monetary policy - US=1, UK=1 UK scored better on foreign investment - US=2, UK=1 Both scores the same for banking and finance - US=1, UK=1 Both scores the same for wages and prices - US=2, UK=2 Both scores the same for property rights - US=1, UK=1 Both scores the same for regulation - US=2, UK=2 The UK scored better on informal markey - US=1.5, UK=1 So as we can see, there are very few economic differences between the two (which explains why the UK remains one of the few dynamic economies in western europe, thanks Thatcher!) and its just the nature of the survey to take an average at the end. With the difference between the US and the UK's score being very tiny, I would hardly say that this shows that the American economic machine is faltering or loosing out to European socialists.
  2. Yeah, I have been waiting for somebody to start something like that. BBC does not take MY taxes. Horrendous is an excessive adjective. Their Middle East reporting is partly flawed due to British history in the region. I find that on a day to day basis, the BBC does a good job of covering many many stories that often do not get in the American media at all. I am also capable of holding my own opinions when they broadcast something I know to be wrong. CNN is a better source for domestic news coverage over Fox. That is not saying much since Fox is an insult to the human brain, but it is slightly better.
  3. A game like Sim City would not be fun, if you as the mayor of the city could not actually do anything because you let the Sims be libertarians who do everything. What is the fun of playing the game if you just let the city develop on its own by a Lassie-Fare AI, and you as the player don't actually do anything except watch and maybe go "I would have built a road more directly then that, but since the roads are priavately owned, I can't do anything about it"? Can't you deactivate natural disasters in the new Sim City? (I was thinking of getting it, and may not if that option is not available)
  4. Since thread neuromancy does not seem to be discouraged on this board... Not quite, there seems to a bit of a misunderstanding about what Hobbes actually thinks and says in Leviathan. In Leviathan, Hobbes opens up with a study of human nature, and identifies that what makes us different form animals, and it is our ability to reason, use science, and be rational. However, the problem is that humans do have passions, many many passions. These are emotions, and most people on this board would consider a lot of them to be irrational. In the state of nature, there is perfect liberty. You are free to do anything you want, because there is no authority that can install the fear of punishment into you to deter you. There is no higher authority that is enforcing any rights, common sense, or reason. Now individuals can act in this situation in two ways: 1. Rational 2. Irrational If you act irrationaly, then you let your passions dictate your desires. "I want your cow, and since no one will stop me, I will take it, I don't recognise your right to that cow anyway, and no one will protect you". But we have rational capabilities, and in the state of nature you of course can say "You have a cow, I have some lumber. We can trade, and thus mutually benefit with nobody having to get killed. We may even develop a currency system and other wonderfull things." This seems fine, but the problem is that Person C sees Person A and B exchange in trade and thinks "Screw them, this is the state of nature, there is no reason for me not to kill them both and take their Cow and Lumber". With a larger population, the greater likelyhood that there will be more people like Person C, whose passions dictate their actions. To leave the state of nature, several things need to happen. First, men need to agree to give up their "rights" to kill anyone. This has to be mutual. But as Hobbes notes, "Covenants without swords are but words". Something needs to enforce our mutual agreement not to kill anyone. This is why there is a need for Leviathan, an overiding force of judgement that keeps the rule of law consistent, and which enforces punishment where there is a transgression of the law. This is Hobbes's argument for why there needs to be enforcable powers to allow for peace. We can see the State of nature in many parts of modern life. International Relations is a good example (with the US argurably taking the role of Leviathan), a school without teachers would be another one, Post-Katrina New Orleans, immediately post-war Iraq is another. Hobbes's argument for Monarchy, as opposed to Assembly or Aristocracy (unelected assembly) to take the form of Leviathan is valid as well. Compare the single-party stability and benevolence of Singapore with the tin-pot "Democracies" of Latin America. Compare the respect and authority of the Supreme Court and office of President, with the contempt of the Senate and the general rabble of the House of Representitives. I would think that Locke's genius over Hobbes, is in the incorporation of all three elements (Aristocracy, Monarchy, and Democracy) into a single system. After all, a bad Leviathan is bad, with checks and balances, you are only in trouble if all your Leviathan coponents are flawed. That is what Hobbes argues. That government is a rational way to protect all members of society so that everyone can engage in rational thought, or capitalism. Not that all humans are intrinsically savage and must be constrained like animals in a zoo.
  5. Fpr reporting quality news, not necessarily. A cable network whose popularity is determiend by viewership numbers does not need to aim that high to attract enough viewers to get high ratings. On the contrary the BBC is suypported by public money and the CSM just gets paid by the church. Neither institution is required to engage in a low brow ratings war so can afford to do indepth, substantial, and international reporting. Obviously it is not impossible to enter the news arena with a profit motive and still do well, The Economist and the Wall Street Journal prove that.
  6. Is Mad Money really worth your time? I always thought that show was more sensationalist as opposed to authentic. TV: -CNN, because for all its faults, it still better then Fox. -BBC World. PBS runs this usually around 6pm. A far better source of international news then CNN. -C Span. Less for the news and more just to keep track of what is going on. Print: -The Economist. Self Explanatory -The Christian Science Monitor. The main benefit of this paper is the lack of a profit motive which allows for a lot more interesting reporting. The religious views are rather margionalized in the paper and I find it another great source, along with BBC, for international news. Web: http://www.bbcnews.com http://www.cnn.com/politics
  7. My closing sentence was probably a bit more mean spirited then I intend.
  8. (note, I am refering to the new Peter Jackson version, not the old one) What is King Kong? It is partly escapism, partly thrill and adventure for its own sake. You can make the point that the adventure is not Romantic, since members of the team get killed by many giant dinosaurs and amazing creatures. That does not change the fact that the scenes in which they died were among the most impressive I have seen on screen in a long time. The action squenceson skull lsland were significantly better then any number of car chases I have seen in multiple films recently, because it was done very well and with genuine tension and excitment. Kong was a characted whom you could respect. As well as great physical strength displayed in vanquishing the dinosaurs, he also wants to protect that which he values (Ann). I suppose that you could Objectivley argue that Kong has no rights which would stop humans from putting him on display, and I would not claim that he does. I would say that Kong is a character whom the (movie) audience can clealry tell is no longer at his prime in New York. Carl has to have Kong's arms raised artificially, the audience (In New York) don't realise this and yet are still impressed. The people in the theater are being given something that is so small scale, so unimpressive, so insulting, to what Kong was able to do with his freedom on the island. And I would argue that the movie makes it clear that mankind, or as you put it "Evil Capitalists" are not to blame for the fall of Kong. The last line is, "It was beuaty that killed the beast". Kong was so consumed by his desire to protect what he valued that he got in the way of everyone else, and did not mind destroying the property of all the people of New York. His death, while necessary, is certainly not something that is done without the context of Kong's more admirable qualities. You may argue that it is naturalistic to do it like that, I would argue that it is good cinema. I doubt Ayn Rand would have ever written anything like King Kong (and I don't know her opinion on the 1933 movie). I also don't care what she would say about the movie because the key thing is that I liked it and I still can approach the rest of my life outside of the cinema with a rational self interested view. You of course have a right to not like the movie, but my only question is why you are unable to seperate the fantasy world and of the context inside the movie from the realities outside the theater, and why you must let the movie cause you discomfort and pain as a film because of its bad philosophy.
  9. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4583160.stm
  10. So, I am guessing that the UK's royalty is not like Denmark's, where the royalty there have to pay full taxes?
  11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates "The UAE has no political parties. There are steps toward democratic government: In December 1, 2005, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan announced that half of the Federal National Council would be elected while the other half appointed by the rulers. This is assumed to be the first of many steps towards a fully democratic government. The rulers hold power on the basis of their dynastic position and their legitimacy in a system of tribal consensus. Rapid modernization, enormous strides in education, and the influx of a large foreign population have changed the face of the society but have not fundamentally altered this traditional political system." So, it seems to be like Singapore. Good economy, less then free politics, but not oppresive.
  12. What the title says. Assume that in a freak accident, the White House has been burnt down. The Government asks Howard Roark (or any Objectivist minded architect) to redesign a new White House. How would do you imagine the home of the executive branch should look like?
  13. Ralph Peter's new book, "New Glory" is one that I highly recemend. The text is an articulate and incredibly powerfull defense of the global expansion of American power and of the benefits of American leadership. The descriptions of life in many parts of the world, from the CIA to South Africa to the Muslim world, are incredibly vivid. While there are maybe a few minor points one may have with it, overall, it is a very good read. New Glory
  14. I dont know about dondigitalia, but I would not argue otherwise.
  15. As has already been said above, it was not seven rejections, it was just me dividing the point up into seven bits so that it would flow more logically. While I can see how that may be the case, the problem is that she was providing all the physical signs that I would interpret as being signs of acceptance. (Willingness to enter personal space, a lack of aversion of physical contact, etc.) So for me, the thought that she subconsciously would not want me, seemed to not fit what I am percieving. And thanks for pointing out the silly idea that I "needed" to be in any relationship at all. That is exactly correct, there was no forcefull rejection to the extent of "No get away from me!". As I understand it from my context, was that it was not quite that, well, pathetic a response. (I percieve the "you are so nice" response as sort of a co-out) I suspect that had that really been the case, she would have then tried to indiciate for me to politely leave her, as opposed to what actually happened. We spent a good several hours together having a very open an intimate conversation which each other, except that (for lack of a better explanation) there was no sex at the end because I had respected her request not to go into a relationship and felt completely unsure as to whether to make purely sexual physical advances. I dont want to have to get more specefic or detailed then that (I cant believe I just wrote that...) but yeah, bascially, I am convinced that she herself is the reluctant "problem" and I am inclined twoards action which was recemended earlier along the "take it or leave it" line of reasoning.
  16. Basically the issue is this. I am a first year at college, and I have found another person here who is amazing, and who I am rationally happy twoards and interested in. As a person, she is someone whom I want to spend my time with so strongly. She knows I feel this way towards her, and she does feel that way towards me, but she tells me that she does not want a relationship because of something which is so incredibly irrational. This irrationality on its own does not want to make me stop, and I am convinced it does not have to be permanant, but I have not been in an expirence like this before and any advice or thoughts would help. This is the basis of her irrationality, as best I can determine (the numbers dont necessarily mean individual points, it just helps me to divide up the story as such) 1. Before she came to college, she was in a strong 1 and a half year relationship which only broke up on day she got on the plane to leave her home state 2. Unlike me, she is having difficulty detaching herself from home (partly because she recently learnt her grandmother died) and is still getting to grips with the whole "leave high school behind and start college" thing 3. So she clealry has not completely "gotten over" her old boyfriend 4. She has known me for almost exactly the same ammount of time she has been in college (we live in the same dorm so see each other a lot) 5. She says that while she is attracted to me for being me, at the same time she finds that I "remind her of" her old boyfriend. I dont find this too bad (its normal to admire similar things in the people you admire) but the thing is, 6. She thinks that since I would only be "filling a gap" in her life by taking the place of her old boyfriend, that she is afriad of "hurting me" at some point down the road because of it. 7. And at the end of the day, her reluctance to "hurt me" because she is afriad of what may happen down the road is what is stopping her from wanting to make the commitment to a relationship. Now, I could respect the fact that she felt she needed to get over her old boyfriend, and I didnt want to impress on her too much if she was reluctant. That would only have repelled her from me since it would suggest I was insensitive to her feelings. But for me, it is clear that this is not the way things have to be, we are so extremely compatable, we share the same feelings for each other, and her reluctance is the problem. I do not want to give up on her, I have not come across anyone else like her on the campus. If anyone has any idea on how to tackle the situation, I would be gratefull.
  17. Considering how secular the European population is, I am suspicious of that interpretation. The EU could have been a positive force for fostering free trade and removing national borders, instead it is well on its way to becoming a fortefied retirement community.
  18. As far as I knew of his personal history, his childhood was spent in perpetual fear of his father (hence why the father figure in Metamorphosis is so hate-filled), and after graduating wollege began working at an insurance agency (not a very exciting job). He contracted tuberculosis and died rather young in 1924. All well before Sartre published "Existentialism is a Humanism" (1946). I do have not read or heard of anything that suggests that Kafka was part of any sort of Existentialist literary or philisophical scene. Whether his works can be posthumusly be interprested as being existentialist is another matter. (Though as I understand it, Objectivists do not like trying to re-intepret the work of an author to fit "any" view, and rally against that sort of relativism, to paraphrase an example which was used on the C-Span writers series on Ayn Rand, as if someone said The Fountainhead had an environmental message because they claimed to be able to prove it/wanted to prove it.) If anyone has any evidence that Kafka was more well versed in Existentialism, I would be interested in learning about it.
  19. You are simply enjoying another work of literature without actually loosing sight of your own personal understanding of reality. If Kafka really a proper Existentialist? I always thought he was just a struggling author, as opposed to someone who was a philisophical existentialist like Sartre. My own opinion is that you are obviously well versed in Objectivism (since you part of the Moderator's group) and as long as you enjoy Kafka as literature, and not start living your life as his was lived, there should be no problem.
  20. What methods, courses, or techniques have you found to be a good method for learning a foreign language for which you do not have any native language speakers around to provide an "immersive" environment? Speed is not an essential concern, just effectiveness of method.
  21. The National Socialists won the most seats but did not win an actual majority in the Reichstag.
  22. Are you saying that because of the methods she selected that the novel is good? Because I would argue that it is the way the author is able to utilize the technique or method. A chronological piece of literature is not automatically the best piece of literature, and a conscious clear description does not necessarily make great literature either. The technique does not stand on its own, its the way the author uses the technique. (And Rand does of course, use the technique well) Propaganda is defined by dictionary.com as "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause" and I have to say that The FH is definately a systematic propagation of a belief system that would form Objectivism. It is systematic because we see the development of the numerous characters as they make their choices in the novel, and those who makes choices along the Objectivist belief do well, and those who don't do not. I would normally never call The FH "Propaganda" though in most other settings, since that term "Propaganda", due to the history of 20th century totalitarian rulers, has come to mean intentinally misleading people from the truth, which is hardly what The FH does.
  23. *reads a few of the above posts* Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I thought "War and Peace" claimed to be the "greatest novel ever".
  24. Heh, I could not disagree with you more. The writing style enhances the reading expirence of the novel. The slow revelations of the events of the past allow for the climax of Snowden's fate to be realised by the end of the novel. I find the forays into the past of the numerous characters on the island to be well done (Major Major Major Major) and the novel is full of many episodes which are well written and which expose the stupidity of the situation with fantastic comedic flair (The Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade). It is very different fron the FH, but it has a different purpose from the FH. Joseph Heller is crafting a fictional world and the numerous characters who are caught up in it, and he does it so very well. He also wants his writing style (not entirely logical) to mirror the world which the characters are caught up in (not entirely logical) The FH of course is different, it is not only Romanticist, but it also needs to prove Ayn Rand's point, so it is methodical and logical. It is chronological because it benefits Ayn Rand's objective to make a point that way. Peter Keating and Howard Roark graduate, we see them both go off into the world, and we see Roark succede and Keating fail. It is an essential zero-sum approach which is necessary to get Ayn Rand's message across to the reader and to impress just how uncompromising Roark has to be.
  25. Its European, I am not to surprised. In anycase, I am interested in seeing how the actor from "Goodbye Lenin" continues his acting career.
×
×
  • Create New...