Lemuel

This is the type I'm dealing with, but let me elaborate the context of the situation I'm involved in. I represent a line of music instruments, and a large part of marketing these instruments is working with professional players. Seeking the endorsement of someone whose career revolves around playing that instrument is a great value. Being able to say "my product is so good that this famous musician uses it" is not only valuable for me, but them. The usual agreement is that we can use their testimony, image, logo, etc. to promote the products online and in print, all in return for a free instrument for them to use on stage. Both benefit from the arrangement: the artist gets premium gear, and the brand gets celebrity marketing. It's not like I'm trying to use a pretty face to sell my wares; I would never seek the endorsement of, say Keanu Reeves or Angelina Jolie because they're not musicians - their word would not lend a credible testimonial to the products' quality. With famous (and talented) musicians, I prove that the products are worthy of use by people whose careers depend on quality instruments, therefore good enough for the musical hobbyist, weekend player, etc. In this case, a "celebrity" endorsement lends additional value to the product. Without going into too much detail, there are severe limitations on my ability to take advantage of this form of marketing (the most powerful and persuasive for any music instrument). Some of those limitaions are circumstantial, and I won't tilt against windmills. Others are problems of perception, willingness, general disagreement over whose responsibility it is (manufacturer, or distributor ... both claiming it's the other's responsibility), and, most problematically, quantifying the efficacy of having such a program.

What's wrong is that, by stealing my property, you're forcing a claim upon my rights. By violating my right to property, you've given up any claim to that same right. I don't have to recognize a right which you do not have.

I'm watching this show right now, and it's pretty interesting, actually. The white dad, who's been masquerading as black hasn't had what the black dad says is "the black experience." Bruno said he didn't feel any different because he identified that he wasn't walking into a situation - shopping for a car, for instance - thinking he was going to be treated differently. "I'm going to approach the situation not as a black man, but as Bruno." Already the individualism card has been played. It will be interesting to see what tactics are used to tear that down.

Sounds like a direct translator program, like SysTran. The sheer absurdity is amusing, though. "The history why be became a foxy man can go back to his teenager ship." Where was my teenager ship!? And how does one make you a foxy man? I had a '79 Dodge Colt in high school ... is there some causal relationship I've been missing all these years?

A sad day, indeed. Does anyone know if the Executive retains the rights to rescind something like the USA PATRIOT Act down the road? I mean, I know it's supposed to be permanent, but how set-in-stone is an "Act" anyway? I mean, is it possible - even remotely - that a future President could say enough with this insanity and repeal it? I'm all for the interagency sharing of information provisions as far as I understand them. But the databases of personal records and post-notified search provisions conjure images of 1984 ... especially if (according to the ACLU website) the Department of Justice acknowledges that 88% of PATRIOT Act enforcement is for non-terrorist crimes.

I have to admit I'm intrigued by the show, and I'll be checking it out at first. I don't expect a lot, though.

Oh. My. Eyes. Burning. That's about the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. I've been laughing for ten minutes straight ...

This is such a blatant violation of the First Amendment that I'm hopeful to see a judge not only strike this down with vengeance and fury, but order the MO state legislature to stay after school and write 100x on the blackboard "Congress shall make no law recognizing the establishment of religion ..." Did these people ever read the Constitution? A middle school civics student could call this one correctly ...

This doesn't surprise me at all. Perhaps that it was South Dakota and not Alabama or Mississippi is a little surprising, but I'm sure many other states will follow, especially when this law is challenged in court for the first time. I hope that there are a few good judges left, and that one of them will get this case. I'd like to read a scathing pro-choice decision similar in tone to the recent intelligent design case where the judge basically identified what it is, nothing more than a religious agenda seeking the State's legislation. But I won't be surprised (and half expect it) if this is maneuvered to SCOTUS. It will be interesting, as well as infuriating, to observe the tactics used to get this in front of the Supremes.

Both. As for the mosque construction, I'm all for a man spending his money on what he wants, but Jacko would do far better to spend that money building a mental treatment facility and checking himself in.

I don't find that surprising at all.

Right on, sister! Gittem!

Greetings all. I wondered if there were some of you who, like me, work in sales and marketing. Specifically, does anyone here work with product endorsements - i.e. contracting with a celebrity for promotional purposes? I normally attempt to avoid asking for help with my work (visions of Keating, y'know ... thanks, Ayn! ), but this is an area where I need some education, and haven't found so much as a path to the answers I seek. So, instead of any direct questions and a long context-building setup, I wanted to first know if there was anyone who had any experience with this sort of thing. Where did you learn to negotiate the relationship successfully? Did you find the endorsement to be effective or a waste of money? How did you quantify the results? If so, of course, avoid sensitive information; there's no need for names or product brands. I'm only interested in the process, and others' experiences, and I'll share a few of my own.

Will somebody please hurry up and make an Atlas Shrugged movie?

Wonderfully, there's a natural emotional reaction to humor: laughter. In Atlas Shrugged, Francisco d'Anconia stated "show me what a man finds sexually attractive, and I'll tell you everything you need to know about him." I suspect one could derive some similarly insightful conclusions about what others laugh at. But is there an "objective sense of humor"? Perhaps it's a lot like music - a person's value-judgements are reflected by their reactions to different kinds of humor, but not all men will find the same joke or gag funny. Or, several men may find a joke funny, but for different reasons, and to different degrees. Luckily, there's more of a conceptual vocabulary for humor than there is for music, so on some level humor can be quantified ... but, is it funny? For me, Dennis Miller's rants from 6, 7 years ago were humorous, but I don't remember laughing that much. And not all comedy is destructive, or meant to draw a laugh at the expense of others. Sometimes it's silly absurdity (Monty Python catapulting farm animals over a castle wall), joyful surprise (the scene in The Incredibles when Dash realizes he's running on water), clever word play & puns (the "Mess o' Potamia" banner shown during "The Daily Show" reports on the Middle East), a well-timed sight gag (the Stonehenge sculpture in Spinal Tap); sometimes it's just great delivery (Jay Mohr's dead-on impression of Christopher Walken), etc. Of course, the examples I provided are simply my choices ... you might find every one of them banal.

Only if you believe in paradoxes. Splinter thread begins in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... 7 ... 6 ... 5 ...

Some would argue that, while we are taxed for such purposes, we should take advantage of it. I argue that we should not be taxed for the purpose of providing basic goods and services for others. There are a number of practical reasons why the government should not be involved in these enterprises; at its foundation though, the government must do so by appropriating citizen's assets against their will to fund these programs. This is how the government steps on our rights. We have the right to work and keep the product of our labors ... all of the product, not a portion of it. Involuntary coercion - no matter how "noble" the cause - is still a violation of rights, even if everyone agrees that it should be done. That's his right. But it's a gamble - what if someone else discovers a replacement energy source first? A "community" does not have a right to progress. It's citizens have the right to improve their lives, which may result in a more modern community. A capitalist system is one where people deal with each other by trade, not by force. The only thing that could "hold a community back" would be government intervention and regulation, meaning the individuals within it were prohibited - by force - from acquiring the goods and services they desire. There are a load of assumptions you make - wealth equals corruption, selfishness (profit) is evil and always at the expense of others, people can't be moral unless there's some official oversight or regulation. The truth is that rational self-interest is the moral standard by which the capitalist profits, and by consequence, how his clients prosper. When businessment are dishonest, they lose business, and expose themselves to civil suits even government intervention to prevent further violation of others' rights. Stop thinking of Enron as the example for capitalist morality; they made bad investments, lied about lost money, and now they're going down - rightfully so. Reality suffers no contradictions, and capitalism suffers no dishonesty ... unless concealed behind government bureacracy. Rationality is a person observing reality, and making appropriate decisions that do not contradict reality. Every situation presents its own set of variables that determine the rational plan of action, but it is objectively decided. Of course, our use of the term "objectively" is different. I think you meant it as "no action can always be rational or irrational." Actually, some can be ... context and observace of reality determine the rest. How about reading it like this: Every man owns his life and his mind and the products of his efforts. He is free to act in accordance with his will, ability, and ambition, and the only limitations on his rights are the rights other men. First, one needs to understand the nature of what a right really is, before you can decide what type of society can exist to protect those rights.

Chapter 10: "The Sign of the Dollar" Dagny meets a tramp on the train, and he turns out to be a former employee of Twentieth Century Motors. He recounts the story of the company's fall to her. I have the large soft-cover Plume Edition, and that chapter starts on page 654; I think the section you're talking about is page 666, where he begins talking about Gerald and Ivy Starnes. (You may have a different Edition, so I don't know if the pages are the same as yours.)

No. Protection of individual rights and providing for a dependant (a child, the infirm, the aged, the retarded) are two different things. A proper government would make sure that these people are not abused or taken advantage of, but that's what government's job is. Kindness and goodwill are not altruism. An altruist public policy would require by law (meaning, under threat of imprisonment) that dependants be taken care of at the expense of the wealthy. Giving to a private charity, helping out a relative, or even running an agency using private contributions are not "altruistic" behaviors. They are freely chosen, based on the values of those who provide for the less-than-capable among us. Wrong. Such a creator does not give away his achievement. He seeks to trade the product of his efforts for another value, mainly monetary profit. He's not holding back others at all; in fact, he's providing sometihng which adds to the productivity and enjoyment of others' lives. He hasn't taken anything away from anyone, and does not prevent competition ... the only way that could happen is with a government monopoly. Perhaps his invention inspires someone who thinks they could make it better, or cheaper, or more suited for a segment of the population that cannot afford the invention. So this second person becomes a competitor, more people become customers, but now all people benefit, as the two companies must constantly lower prices and offer more options to maintain their market share. Sure, it takes money to begin competing with others. That's where the venture capitalist comes in - a person who has accrued wealth, and seeks to diversify his wealth by investing in others. If he is a wise investor, and the applicant is innovative and honest, such a person can enter his chosen industry to compete. That's where salesmanship comes in. You want to tear up my land to lay water pipes and electrical lines to a rural community where you've purchased a great deal of land. I don't want my crops disturbed ... without adequate compensation. By negotiating and thinking creatively, you could discover a way to get the job done in good time, reconstruct my fields, and cut me in on some discount water, sewer, and electrical services. But if I don't sell, I'm not actively taking anything away from you or the community you want to serve. Am I denying you an opportunity? Perhaps, but until you can make it somehow profitable for me, I'm not selling my land or allowing you to dig a trench through my crops. Only if the people in that state sell all their assets to foreign governments. If sold to private industries, then one living in the USA, but working for a German company, would still be a US citizen and be protected by her laws. I'm not too good with foreign policy, but I assume that - in principle - a nation of rational free-traders (which the USA isn't completely ... yet) would not tolerate a massive injection of investment funds from a foreign government that does not recognize individual rights. Or, to put it another way, a moral industrialist would rather see his productions wither away, than profit from selling to an entity which acquired its wealth on slave labor and/or looting.

It's not a book, but Fatherland is an excellent alternate-history movie along the same lines as "The Children's War", ie, set in a universe where Axis powers won WWII. I also heard there's a new "mockumentary" coming out that explores modern America if the Confederate States won the Civil War.

1. It depends on the level of retardation involved. People who are mildly retarded can find gainful employment, and in a capitalist society there is a need for jobs which require relatively little mental effort. Unless the person in question is dangerous, or suffers from an inability to cope in public, there are ways in which he can survive. Sure, he may need the help of a third party to be responsible with money and maintain healthy living standards, but that third party could be a family member, or even a non-profit organization which manages those who cannot make it on their own. Thus, there is no need for government-funded assistance for the mentally challenged. There are more effective private means available. 2. There are two options for the aspiring farmer who has no land (of course, assuming that there isn't any available, which is highly unlikely). He could go to work for an existing farmer, using his skills and experience to increase the profitability and yield of his employer. This benefits them both, and is a perfectly rational option. The second would be to develop alternative farming methods, where fertile land isn't available. This is the motivation behind hydroponic farming, which (in principle) one could achieve in most environments. 3. Capitalism opposes "central planning", primarily because of the issue you mentioned - being evicted from your land in favor of a more "efficient" use. In a centrally planned economy (or where eminent domain is practiced), you'd be evicted by force. In a capitalist society, those that want your land will offer to purchase it from you, and you can negotiate your price. If you do not yield, you are protected by the government from any attempt to force you off your land, or cheat you out of it. 4. Hard work, perseverance, and differentiation. I have some knowledge of this, because I sell a line of music instruments that are expensive to produce and sell at higher prices than others like them. How we compete is to offer a product that fills needs not supplied by the "Big 3" companies in my market. As consumers become aware of the specific benefits our products offer, they purchase them, other musicians see them used and purchase them, and consequently the line has grown from obscurity to becoming a serious contender in 10 years. Perhaps one day, we'll be one of the "Big 4", but it's better for us to compete in the free market to get there, than for someone else to force the other 3 to let us in. There are many ways a small manufacturer can compete, but he won't be able to compete by offering the same thing at the same price. For example, SKU Mart's widgets are cheap - but disposable; Elite Co.'s widgets are more expensive, but are better quality, and may even be customized for specific uses. - - - The only way I can respond to your last comments is to say: keep reading Ayn Rand, and if need be, post specific questions on this forum. Your final comments are a mixture of broad concepts and specific applications, and cannot be adequately answered without a lot of background. All I can say is this: "tribalism" as you call it may have been a "necessary" step in the evolution of societies, but no form of collectivism can be sustained without abrogating the rights of others. We know this in our modern world, and the time to abandon collectivism is long past. And we do have a right to life, every one of us. If you abdicate your right to live, so be it - just don't complain when you're fired because a bureaucrat wants to fill your position with a retarded person, or if a "central planner" decides you have to move, or that you're not allowed to be a farmer, or compete in any way with those that the corrupt planners protect.

But would it not be better to be involved at the private level - morally, economically, and even scientifically? True, the private space industry is in its infancy, but you'd be getting in on the ground floor of something that has nowhere to go but up (pun recognized, but not intented). There are investment opportunities, career advancements, and scientific opportunities that are the result of merit, without political pressure factoring in. For example: What happens if this noble plan of the Bush Administration gets crippled by the next President who might think space flight is a waste? I'm all for space flight (Earth is so last century ...), and have the highest regard for anyone who can make a career in that industry ... but I don't see NASA getting to Mars before Paul Allen (or another dedicated entrepeneur). [And, by the way ... I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but the quote in your sig is originally Robert Heinlein's: "The meek can have the Earth. The rest of us are going to the stars." (Time Enough for Love, 1973)]

One hopes! I'll probably go catch this one; even though I'm not crazy about P.K. Dick's super-paranoid sense of life, I must admit that I like the contrived stories and speculative set-ups.

Just out of curiosity, did you consider the option of suing the hospital for an itemized bill? Granted, you've already paid it, so there's no leverage at this point. (And I don't blame you - who wants that kind of dispute to mess up their credit rating?) But say you were still holding out. In the absence of a law requiring itemized billing, would not the appropriate private action would be to take the hospital to court, sue for: the itemized bill, a court order restraining them from reporting the overdue bill to the credit bureau, and compensation for legal expenses? I don't think the hospital would just roll over and print the bill out at the mere suggestion of a lawsuit, but a lawyer delivering the papers - coupled with a submission of the story to local media outlets - might put some pressure on them ...

Hmmm, a character holding The Fountainhead in a film centered around drug use & government surveillance, based on a story by Phillip K Dick ... I'm going to guess this will be a positive plug for Objectivism. (© 2006 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.) ... maybe not ...