Groovenstein

I can't speak for the average man. For my part, though, I hate the Yankees and they are the enemy in a sort of fun "Haha, I hope your team loses" way. Not in a "Anyone rooting for or associated with the Yankees is seriously, I mean seriously, vile" way, and definitely not in a "I hate eminent domain and the bastards responsible for it who ruin lives" way. [Edit: Besides, everyone knows the Broncos are the real enemy. No, wait, they suck. Nevermind. ]

The properties of sound are truly amazing. From here in Lincoln, Nebraska, I can hear the Yankees' cries from all the way down there on those Floridian golf courses they're all playing now.

For those interested in further investigation of RB's point, he is referring to what is called the "separate sovereigns" doctrine.

Speeding tickets are not about safety--they are about (1) revenue and (2) looking for drugs. In my short legal career, I've crossed paths with many prosecutors, some of whom have explicitly acknowledged to me that traffic tickets are for those two things. The revenue thing is easy enough to understand. The drug thing is pretty simple, too, once you realize that "a traffic violation, no matter how minor, creates probable cause to stop the driver of a vehicle." State v. Every freaking Fourth Amendment case involving a traffic stop. That said, while of course it is true that the government should not own the roads, the fact remains that it does. And so long as that's true, I do not quibble with reasonable safety regulations. I do quibble with unreasonable regulations, especially speed limits that are obviously way too low.

Okay, I run the risk of being totally lame by quoting myself. But those are the ones I remember the best. And besides, if I don't laugh at my own jokes, why the hell should you? I'm fond of this one: Then there's my favorite. This was an exchange I had with a troll who clearly wasn't a big fan of mine: If I'm a clown for tooting my own horn, fine. But you can't tell me that exchange isn't classic.

That's fine. I'm not chastising you for asking. Before we go deeper into your inquiries, would you mind telling us what Objectivist works you have read, and, generally speaking, your agreement with Objectivism? It would help tremendously if we knew your background with Objectivism and what you'd like to get out of the forum.

The quote you supplied from Rand: "In the normal conditions of existence, man has to choose his goals, project them in time, pursue them and achieve them by his own effort. He cannot do it if his goals are at the mercy of and must be sacrificed to any misfortune happening to others." I don't know the full context in which this assertion was made. Nonetheless I am comfortable addressing it on its own. I wish to emphasize a critical word in that quote: MUST. Objectivism says it is wrong to think that you MUST help relieve another's suffering (in the absence of a voluntarily assumed obligation). But the conclusion you draw from that is erroneous. You are interpreting that to mean that you CANNOT help relieve another's suffering. Do you see the distinction between the two?

Your scenario is incomplete. That said, under most of its permutations it is completely immoral to not offer assistance. What's the cost to you, a few minutes at most spent checking on him, dialing 9-1-1, etc.? Unless you know that this neighbor is a complete waste, such as a murderer or rapist or something, you are acting completely against your self-interest if you don't spend a trivial amount of time and effort to save a productive person's life. A rational person knows that he benefits from the existence of other productive individuals, because more productive people means more and better products and services for him to enjoy. A rational person also benefits from having neighbors in that they may share conversation (hey how was the game? I couldn't watch it); personal items (hey can I borrow your lawnmower?); protection (hey I'm going away for a few days, can you keep an eye on my place?); and a whole lot of other stuff. The ethics of emergencies topic is not relevant here. That applies when you have to make a decision under emergency circumstances for you. In the scenario raised, you are not the subject of an emergency. People (not necessarily anyone here) sometimes think that rational self-interest equals antisocial hermit. That is a horribly flawed position. Just because I make my decisions based on the benefit to me does not mean that I can not enjoy the company of others. Social life often has tremendous benefits.

You are great for making law review. You are also crazy. Anyway, here's hoping that you take your academic successes and turn them into a wonderful career that allows you to offer me a job somewhere down the line! If I think of anything interesting, beyond just mentioning noteworthy Supreme Court cases from this term, I'll let you know.

That site is approximately 14.8927 billion miles long. Is there a particular point you wish to discuss?

To add to the silliness, he was also charged with illegal gambling.

My friend and I visited the pet store to play with an adorable puppy. Just a couple pictures, but man, is she cute.

I never said it was the first ever. Although it is the first in the Middle East, where the idea of an ice lounge in that weather is great. I only said it was awesome. If all you have to offer is "it's nothing new", I'd prefer you just kept that to yourself, especially in light of your posting history here. When someone like me wants to celebrate something awesome, someone like you should keep his pithy remarks to himself.

They just keep achieving. Now they've got a bar/lounge made of ice. The article is mostly good, save for the tripe about energy consumption, to which I respond: Look what man can do! Consume away!

Dramatic chipmunk just slays me.

Our guitarist--also the primary songwriter--writes some cool lyrics. In "Walk the World in Chains" he identifies the evil of an oppressor. The chorus and bridge: The theme of "I'll Find You" is someone who's not quite ready for a relationship with a particular person, and he's telling the person that when he's ready he will seek them out. The lyrics are not as obvious about the theme, however it's filled with very interesting phrases. The first verse especially creates a great sense of mystery. Here are the first verse, chorus, and second verse: Finally, I must give tremendous props to John Mayer's work on his "Room for Squares" album. That album is chock full of great lyrics. "Your Body is a Wonderland" is among his best work. Here's the second verse:

I thought about putting it on my list, but I figured it would be stretching the definition of "soundtrack" to heretofore unseen levels. Silly me, turns out I missed a grand promotional opportunity. Thanks for having my back! (Oh yeah, you should have your offspring bring our CD to college and play it for his friends, who are hopefully as morally upright as he about copyright issues, and will thus thereafter purchase many of their own individual copies.) (Now who's the suck-up? ) [Edit: Steinus Mattus--an idiot who posts things more than once.]

The movies Hook and Braveheart have great soundtracks. The former is by John Williams and the latter by James Horner. There's a jazzy song on the Hook soundtrack that demonstrates Williams' stylistic versatility. And Braveheart, well, that whole thing is just damn epic. I still have trouble, stylistically, telling them apart from Dvorak's 9th. I think that's a testament to Dvorak that he had such a timeless sound. And he was there first.

Vern, that's outstanding. I hope the appeal shows the process to have been done correctly and this conviction can stand.

Congrats! The members of ObjectivismOnline.net wish to offer some presents for your celebration:

Not so obviously. This requires considerable clarification. Receiving approval from Hillary Clinton might influence a lot of egos, but certainly not mine. And even then, for what is the approval received? Etc. On its face your question is unclear. You should try to state it more clearly. If your question is really "Should a person's own interests always be his primary goal?", the answer is yes. If your question is really "Can a person rationally value the approval of others?", the answer is sometimes. If your question is really "Does pursuit of one's selfish interests require that others suffer a detriment?", the answer is no.

Hi peoples! My friend and I recently started overhauling the look of our band's MySpace page. Neither one of us knew anything about html, css, etc., so we spent hours upon hours researching the various codes to make adjustments on MySpace. When all was said and done, we had a cool new look for our page. Unfortunately, that cool new look only works 100% on Safari. There are glitches on Firefox and IE. Neither one of us has Netscape so there might be problems there as well. The major one on Firefox is that our contact table isn't showing up. We used code to hide the one they have and then put our own in as a background image. This doesn't show up on Firefox, though the links are still there. We're working on fixing this but we are novices and are struggling thus far. If anyone has any good suggestions, we would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

"More able". That's cute. Do you know where you are? I don't mean your axes in the space-time continuum. I mean this forum. Do you know what we think about socialized medicine?? I'm giving you two options at this point: (1) take this statement of yours to the debate forum where it belongs, then start putting some effort into trying to defend it rather than throwing out cheap baiting one-liners; or (2) retract it completely.

Not only that, but turn it from a tip into an actual agreement. After you take Inspector's suggestion and clarify what "big tip" means, then ask a confirming question, such as, "Okay, so if I deliver these meds to you at this place outside our delivery range, you will give me x dollars above the price of the meds?"