Hat Trick

I am comparing the extreme right to that guy to point out what I don't like about their policy on immigration. Get a life.

Man, being harassed by the cops, that brings back memories... My post said that this type of behavior was "So typical of the extreme right," I never said that this particular guy was extreme right. Y'all need to lighten up

Before anybody says anything, yes that IS a 10,000 Maniacs t-shirt, yes I know i'm girly...

I don't think it's immoral to kill yourself under ANY circumstances, but were the US to be socialized that would be an immoral reason and an immoral time to kill yourself. It reminds me of the old railroad tramp Dagny picks up at the end of AS, he tells her he's going out west to see if there's any work, she asks him "do you think you'll find any?" and he says no, but he's going to try anyway because "it would be wrong to let your life slip away without at least making a try for it."

You telling me a tree-hugger would pull something like that?

1. Ayn Rand (100%) Click here for info 2. Nietzsche (60%) Click here for info 3. Kant (57%) Click here for info 4. Aristotle (57%) Click here for info 5. John Stuart Mill (55%) Click here for info 6. Stoics (53%) Click here for info 7. Aquinas (50%) Click here for info 8. David Hume (49%) Click here for info 9. Cynics (47%) Click here for info 10. Epicureans (46%) Click here for info 11. Jean-Paul Sartre (43%) Click here for info 12. Thomas Hobbes (42%) Click here for info 13. Plato (41%) Click here for info 14. Spinoza (38%) Click here for info 15. St. Augustine (37%) Click here for info 16. Prescriptivism (35%) Click here for info 17. Jeremy Bentham (34%) Click here for info 18. Ockham (30%) Click here for info 19. Nel Noddings (8%) Click here for info

That's an idea. The kid grows up well fed & cared for courtesy of his backers, gets a good education courtesy of his backers and pays it back when he can fend for himself. The company, in turn, gets the interest from the loan and possibly an invaluable employee...

What's happening Jess? Same name, same state, AND a hatred for Maria Can't budget well, you're alright man! -Tricky

I believe, in the interest of self-respect, dignity, refinement, and culture you have a duty to yourself to answer any question, (as you say, even an "I don't know" or "Let me get back to you" is sufficient, in the interest of keeping dialogue going). I think, thusly, that politeness is a highly important virtue to an Objectivist. If every man is an end unto himself then we all must demand the most of ourselves in every possible capacity up to and including etiquette and temperment. If someone is unjust and you address them in a rude manner, this would indicate that their injustice is getting to you, and you have to be better than that. We are absolutely called to identify and stamp out any injustice in the interest of our own good, but we can't get self-righteous or preachy about it because that would mean that we want to "teach those punks a lesson," which to me is anti-objectivist. To me, the Objectivist belief is in retribution, not rehabilitation, and the unjust must suffer the penalties because they know the rules and chose to break them of their own accord. What difference does it make to us that they made a stupid decision?

I don't know, man, I love Mel Gibson. I mean, even the Passion of the Christ. He made a movie about "God" which in spite of all the sabre-rattling didn't lead a single person to the Christian church nor did it effect anybody's belief system in any way. I think that at the end of the day he fleeced the church out of billions that they were going to squander on a bunch of ne'er-do-wells and he put it in his own pocket (in fact, with the exception of possible tax-break stuff I don't think he gave a single red cent of it to any charity of any kind, but I could be wrong). The only thing that pisses me off about the Passion of the Christ is that I didn't think of it first...

I know what you mean. I had a hockey coach who was the same way, a brooding, cynical bastard who was never satisfied with "it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." I played better under him than I have in years since graduating from high school. I think that a positive environment is all and well and good as far as making people feel better (aaaww..) but let's not kid ourselves about how the west was won.

It's an edit anyway, I see nothing funny about it.

I agree with you completely, but the government does not. The only way around the "general welfare of the people" loophole would be to accept that there will be some services which (while I believe as you do that they would be better served by those in the private sector) which would be allowed to continue on the grounds that they don't benefit any specific individual more so than any other. We agree, it's just that i'm talking about an arguement that would be constitutionally sound and you're talking about the way it ought to be.

I discovered Objectivism through a book club I was a member of, the idea being that we read some works which advocated several different moral philosophies (Cultural Relativism, Subjectivism, Psychological Egoism, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, Social Contract Theory, and a couple of books by Immanuel Kant). After reading the Fountainhead, I was so excited that there were in fact other people who believed as I did in the absolute dominance of the human mind over nature and circumstance. The rest is history...

Good question, the only thing I could think of is that taxes are collected "for the common Defence and general welfare of the united states." that is to say that once the military costs and vitals (education, postal service, police, fire and the like) are covered there is no need to collect taxes. Therefore, you could argue that the collection of an income tax is unnecessary on the grounds that once other taxes are collected the government should have enough to pay for the essential elements of government. The remaining capital collected through income tax is usurped from the higher income bracket and spent not on the general welfare of the united states (that is to say, ALL OF US in the United States) but on specific individuals who have not earned it. The first essential element of balancing any budget is getting rid of any non-essential spending, THEN you find a more efficient means of aquisition.

Regrettably I wasn't here when this thread was originally made but I just have to drag this old thread up. I'm just extremely excited that there are other Objectivists who listen to Prince. I also have to agree with your choice of songs, but I would also have to throw in "Get Off" and "Diamonds and Pearls" Because he's a great rapper that's why! I haven't heard anybody flow like him since A Tribe Called Quest broke up.

Isn't that just so typical of the extreme right, though? His complaint seems to be that illegal immigrants are "only good for making babies" and essentially just a bunch of welfare cases, and yet he goes after a bunch of guys who are honestly looking for work. If he wanted to make a point, he could have taken a bunch of INS agents to a welfare office and deport those illegal immigrants, not the ones who are ready, willing, and able to work. Did you hear back from the website, Dagny?

I am, and have always been a big hockey fan. I grew up watching NHL (GO WINGS!), NCAA (GO UNH!) and junior hockey (to this day I am a Spokane Chiefs season ticket holder) and have never stopped. Does anybody else believe that the practice of athletics is essentially an objectivist principal? I mean, here you have a competition in which there are clear winners and losers, where it takes a lifetime of achievement and training to even be allowed to compete, and to the victors go the spoils (LOTS of spoils, millions in spoils). I was thinking about this during the NHL lockout. It is to me a clearcut example of why objectivism works and why altruism is a lost cause. The owners were losing money due to the players inability (the on-ice product was far less exciting than it had been in past years) so they instituted a salary cap. The cap sounds like a pretty communist solution, but bear in mind that it still allows for bonuses given by the league based on production and of course advertising revenue which goes only to players who are good enough to reap such advertising contracts. So essentially, the league has put the players in a sink-or-swim position: the best players will get huge bonuses and the players who aren't good enough to be in the NHL to begin with are going to be cut due to the low overhead on the cap. Any other sports fans out there? Do you believe the current state of the game is by nature objectivist?

My name is Jesse, and I am a 25 year old Objectivist living in Spokane Washington. I am at present a Circ Librarian at Spokane Falls Community College, and will eventually be moving on to EWU to study finance & economics. I'm also a huge hockey fan, a capitalist, a member of ARI, and a jazz musician (I play piano, or guitar in a pinch). Nice to meet everybody, and I hope to learn more about the principals & non-contradictions behind the Objectivist lifestyle through the use of this site. In conclusion, Greed, Get that Money, Dollar Dollar Bill Y'all.

My nick is Hat Trick, or tricky.