Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by andrew

  1. Within the nearly exhausted discourse that has been conducted on this board about who to vote for, it seems an Objectivist's anti-Bush stance is basically because of Bush's faith. My question is, how come there has been very little said about Kerry on this matter? http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...10005840.htm?1c I find it hard for people who think religion within America is our greatest threat, not Islamic Fundamentalism, to vote for a man who ties in faith with the welfare state. True, Bush does this to some degree, but it seems Bush promotes laissez-faire ideals, though based on religion, far more than Kerry. Kerry is completely anti-capitalist and a man of faith. Note: I'm sorry but I haven't been able to find the exact quotes from Kerry's speech, just this article about it.
  2. I just graduated from high school back in June. I went to a private middle school and high school and the education was quite good. The only problem was people either never heard of Ayn Rand, or you'd get my English teacher (who taught me a lot about Derrida and deconstruction! Yeah, I slept a lot during that class) who wouldn't even discuss her. I did have an English teacher for my expository writing class who was a great guy; he was probably the only Republican teacher there. He also had a poster in his room advertising the ARI essay contest, although his only experience with Ayn Rand was watching The Fountainhead about 40 years ago. I suggested he read up on her before he continued on with his Nietzche studies. What field of study are you looking to pursue in college? If you know you want to be an Engineer and would like to get an engineering or business degree, then I have to suggest Kettering University. That's where I am right now and it's great. We have an interesting program here where the whole time you study here you hold a co-op job, which is employment in the field of study that you're majoring in. This means you rotate between work and school, go to work for three months, go to school for three months, and so on and so on. It's a bit rigorous, one has to take at least 16 credits per school term, but the education is great and you get real world experience (and money from your job to pay off that damn tuition ). I'm only in my first term here as a freshman, so I don't have a co-op job yet. I'm a dual major between Industrial Engineering and Business (concentration Finance) and I'm interviewing with several major corporations and a few small start up firms. If any high schoolers are interested at all, the admission office mostly looks at your math SAT score (mine was a 780 if I remember correctly) and they give you a little elbow room on your verbal score (I believe mine was somewhere around 670 so not quite as good). They also like to see a GPA above 3.6 I think, but that's not all they look at. They like to see strong technical skills and a driven personality. The campus here is about 70% REPUBLICAN (or so the college republicans say) so I've been thinking about starting an Objectivist club since I can find several people I almost agree with .
  3. After watching the trailer I'm a bit skeptical
  4. My original point was I don't see the Capitalism Party using the consumption tax as a method of moving in the direction of removing taxes. I think Charlotte made it quite clear by presenting their stance that consumption is the "destruction of wealth." Like many conservatives, the Capitalism Party recognizes that the income tax is wrong but they fail to recognize how all taxation is wrong.
  5. I'd be careful when it comes to proving an axiom. The point with axioms being self-evident is that they can't be proven since proof relies on those axioms; they presuppose it. Axioms can be validated[/], voicing your point that in order to deny them one has to accept them. I think an interesting proof to check out is the one for Ayn Rand's theorem "Egoism as rational moral value of identity"
  6. Check out this article about Kerry Conran from Apple: http://www.apple.com/pro/video/conran/index.html The man seems to be pretty innovative with using relatively common, yet still expensive and complicated, software. I agree with his prediction that more and more movies, including ones like this that seeming look grand, will be made by "no names" like him.
  7. I don't think any tax is consistent with Objectivism. In a national consumption tax you're still taxing individuals' voluntary trade with one another.
  8. Has anybody seen this movie or know anything about it? A quick look at their website doesn't make the movie look to appealing. www.thecorporation.com
  9. The liberals are probably the biggest proponents of a military draft right now. They view the military as an institution made up of lower income individuals who are cheated in life because they have no where to turn but a military that promises, but does not deliver, a college education and job. In Fahrenheit 9/11 Moore attempts to illustrate this "point" by seeing if any congressman will send, he fails to see that this is a volunteer military, their son or daughter to Iraq. This is a standard move by the American left.
  10. Charles, Under our current tax system the "rich" pay the majority of taxes. I believe the figure goes something like the top 5% pay 53% of all income taxes and earn 31% of all income. Of course Republicans aren't going to cut taxes "equally" since our current system doesn't equally tax people. If you pay more taxes, you should get a bigger across the board tax cut. The problem with Republicans on economic issues is they seem to me like borderline Keynesians. Cutting taxes only for political purposes and economic stimulation, not because taxes are a violation of governmental power. Then again Democrats take on Keynes' entire method of government spending and running deficits and surpluses. I can't ever imagine myself voting Democrat. I'm happy to see Oakes bring up this issue for I've wrestled with it many times myself.
  11. I'm another INTJ. I took this test in a class last year. My teacher and I were the only INTJs
  12. I really enjoyed Clinton's talk concerning the tax cuts. He complained about how since he's now in the top 1% of the income bracket he's getting a tax cut paid for by regular Americans. He really wishes the government could take his money and use it towards something good. I wonder if during his 8 years in office he realized any citizen can make a donation to the United States treasury...
  13. I don't know of any material entity that doesn't have a fixed supply. Therefore, your argument would have to carry over to all material values, and with that mindset you're only a step away from nationalization of industry.
  14. 1. Ayn Rand (100%) 2. Plato (77%) 3. Aristotle (75%) 4. St. Augustine (74%) 5. John Stuart Mill (73%) 6. Jean-Paul Sartre (72%) 7. Jeremy Bentham (66%) 8. Aquinas (65%) 9. Epicureans (65%) 10. Thomas Hobbes (65%) 11. Nietzsche (62%) 12. David Hume (61%) 13. Spinoza (59%) 14. Cynics (51%) 15. Kant (46%) 16. Stoics (43%) 17. Prescriptivism (36%) 18. Ockham (27%) 19. Nel Noddings (22%)
  15. I did a brief search for a discussion on Iran in the forum and wasn’t able to find anything with real substance. In my Middle Eastern Studies class we are supposed to go to class tomorrow ready to propose and discuss possible US involvement in Iran. The basic problem in Iran, which I’m sure you’re all familiar with, is the fundamentalist government has destroyed the somewhat prosperous Iranian economy, destroyed civil liberties, and managed to stay at the top of the list of states who fund terrorism. To make the problem even worse, it appears that they are desperately trying to develop a nuclear weapons program right under the nose of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Some estimates have been made that if Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program that they could quite possibly have an arsenal of 50 nuclear weapons by 2006. There seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel here with the students of Iran. It seems to me that this generation, which has had limited access to CNN and the Internet, is starting to denounce the ideology responsible for the “Death to America” slogan and is increasingly becoming pro-Western values. I’m not sure where I found this statistic, but I believe 1 out of 4 Iranian college graduates now work in America. When I think about the subject of Iran I’m basically struck with two questions: 1.) Is there any real difference between the “conservatives” and the “reformists” within this theocracy? 2.) What should the US do when it comes to Iran? It seems to me, after a brief look at the issues at hand, that it is in America’s self-interest to change the current situation in Iran. Should we take military action? If so, to what extent? Should we somehow provide “support” (I’m not even sure what that would mean in this case) to the students and intellectuals of the country? I’d appreciate any input.
  16. I didn't know people from this forum played the game. I'm going to join United Capitalist States.
  17. I don't think the debate is over the term "making the pie bigger." Instead the debate is over "making the pie bigger for everyone." Objectivism is not compatible with an argument claiming that capitalism is a system that easily achieves a "common good" in creating wealth for everyone. Yes, from an inductive angle, capitalist systems are the wealthiest (take a look at the GDP and per capita GDP of any society which is close to being a free one and compare it to a basic command economy like that of North Korea). Of course this inductive angle, as you hinted, is not what Objectivism is about. Yes, in Objectivism we work with the basic principle that A is A or "existence exists" and work out way up. Hence our core justification of capitalism is its defense of individual rights.
  18. LucentBrave, this is off topic but your post implies that taxation is moral as long as the revenue is directed solely to freedom and human rights. Taxation, no matter the use of its revenue, is immoral since it depends on the initiation of force. What you have with taxation is a brute government going around and looting individuals' productivity; looting individuals' minds; looting individuals' lives. A government, in a free society, is solely concerned with the protection of individual rights. The only functions of a government needed to protect individual rights are the police, the armed forces, and the law courts. Since the police, the armed forces, and the law courts are necessary to the protection of individual rights it is in the self-interest of each citizen in this free society to pay for these services. This means that individuals within the society would voluntarily pay the government for its role in the protection of their individual rights much like people already pay for services they need. As long as the government sticks to its proper course there would be no need for them to steal to cover their spending since they would have a voluntary trade of value for value. It is our government that has perverted the relationship between a government of a free society and the citizens of that free society moving away from the principle of the government being a servant of the citizens (“a government for the people”). Since it is the government that is in the wrong it is their responsibility to amend their ways, not ours.
  19. I have not read the article. Could you possibly direct me to where I could read it?
  20. I don't know if anyone in this forum is from Michigan, but this is still a relevant story. Check out this article: Authorities break up private lottery, seixe $2.2 million I find it disgusting. I'd be interested in hearing other's take on it.
  21. I'm not a fan of the Capitalism slogan. Although catchy and attractive to some, t's not compatible with Objectivism. To quote Rand: "The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve "the common good." It is true that capitalism does -- if that catch-phrase has any meaning -- but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, that its ruling principle is: justice" ["What Is Capitalism?" CUI, 20] The "common good" phrase in your slogan is "making the pie bigger for everyone."
  22. Apprentice, I too agree with your moral argument. For more information I refer you to an article on government regulation that you can find in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand. It's entitled "The Assault on Integrity" and it's by Alan Greenspan. It's clear, concise in presenting your same basic argument.
  23. "Having an ability IS evidence of a threat of its use" What do you mean by that and where does one draw the line? Let's say I have enough money to purchase a banned weapon on the black market, could the government come and arrest me because I have the ability to be a threat? This is an extreme but what you just said warrants it due to your statement's subjectivity. The owner of the nuclear weapon is only a threat when they CHOOSE to arm and aim it at others.
  • Create New...