Dikaiosyne

As Far as Subduing the Populace, the best move I found was to Romanize (or Hellenize, for my favorite Faction was the Greek Cities) the City as quickly as Possible. That means replacing all the buildings with the Roman Equivalent, and tearing down the buildings without them (this means Temples and certain faction specific ones, though the happiness faction buildings are generally neutral). Thus planting Roman Temples, (especially the Law and Order Gods, like Jupiter) and bringing running water, that uniquely civilizing feature that reduces squalor and thus unrest, are key to the long term health of the empire. As far as the Garrisons go I would levy a bunch of the population into Peasants, the highest population unit in the game, and they would be enough of a check to keep the city in order, for its "boots on the ground" that matter, not the quality of the soliders. Also queuing more peasants to be built reduces the population thus that makes the city more manageable. Generals with high Influence helped, along with keeping your capitial more or less in the middle of your empire, and not expanding too far from the Mediterranean, for many Barbarian Cities just aren't really economically worth it. I have to admit a few of my offensives stalled when pacifying a huge city I conquered, but with some TLC, it was soon a new shining jewel for the empire, without resorting to Mass Murder. But if the population is too high to begin with that even your army plus a whole suite of peasants cannot keep it under control, you can "Enslave the Populace" that is send half of them in chains back to cities that you have a general in, this both increases their population, and decreases the population on the frontier. And historically, it was a very Roman thing to do, for after some time slaves could be made Roman Citizens, thus assimilating them into the culture. So long story short, Imperialism takes some creativity, and doesn't have to be done via exterimination.

If your paper is near immaculately perfect, then you have a real beef. As long as there is no "legitimate" reason for giving your paper a F, not answering the question, or not following directions, and this is simply a If this "professor" has tenure, I would say don't bother with fighting the system, there is next to nothing you can do. Drop the class if your pride proves unswallowable, or give the guy what he wants, that shouldn't be too hard to figure out. But if he doesn't have tenure, please make as big a stink about this as possible. With your credentials, African-American and a high GPA, there is no "narrative" you could conveniently fit into, for its next to impossible to call you a racist. Revolutions start when the first person says "No." I understand that you may not have the time or energy to deal with this bull, but this could be a golden opportunity to strike a blow for the good guys.

To Quote Pat Robertson, "BIZZARO HELPING, BIZZARO HELPING!"

From the Introduction to "The Fountainhead" Perhaps the best to communicate The Fountainhead's sense of life is by means of the quotation which had stood at the head of my manuscript but which I removed from the final, published book. With this opportunity to explain it, I am glad to bring it back. I removed it, because of my profound disagreement with the philosophy of its author, Friedrich Nietzsche. Philosophically, Nietzsche is a mystic and irrationalist. His metaphysics consist of a somewhat "Byronic" and mystically "malevolent" universe; his epistemology subordinates reason to "will," or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character. But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man's greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual terms. ... "The noble soul has reverence for itself." (Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil) (The Bold is Mine)

I just want to say thank you for pointing this out, Its really good stuff. It reminds me in spirit of 2112. Youtube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgUXmiQFHN4

This is second-handedness at its worst, without the great achievement of the composers of the past, these people would have no vehicle for their point of view (it would be far too generous to call it a philosophy.) This reminds me of when the French Impressionists didn't want to have any frames on their canvases, for the fear they would take away from the work itself. When they where forced to comply or not be able to show their work, they used simple wood frames and extended the picture on the canvas to include the frame itself, so the work of art would have only been one person's vision. The frame these people are putting on these operas so distracts from heart of the work of art, that one wishes that the Impressionist's insight could have possibly been extended to opera.

For your gold example, there is obviously something that I, as a human, could possibly trade with you for your house and the land under it. Just because I lack it doesn't give me the right to use force. The Point is that the Humans in the Movie couldn't conjure anything the Na'Vi wanted, they wouldn't trade Hometree for all the proverbial tea in China. There is a difference in-between something and anything. At least with a Muslim, since we are both human, we can reasonably get to point where we can trade, this doesn't have anything to do with their culture or their values, but their status as human beings. One of the virtues of capitalism for example is allowing trade between people that would otherwise hate each other. I would think that, although you don't value Muslims in anyway, you still fill up your gas tank from time to time. My Point is that it is next to impossible to trade with something that has a different nature than you. Take a Pet for example, while you may give it food, and it may give you affection, this is not a trade, its more like Animal Management. With an alien species, one with truly alien values and priorities, trade may be realistically impossible. Then given the ability to take what you want by force, the choice comes down to A. I appreciate the aliens enough aesthetically more than taking the gold or the unobtainium or whatever from them (This is more or less an environmentalist argument) or B. Screw them and take what you want.

Thats more or less all you can get from this movie if you truly seriously take the aliens as aliens, instead of Native American Expys. Humans need to live by technology and reason, and its not so obvious that the Na'Vi need to as well. This is why the main character clearly said that there is nothing we can trade with them, and nothing we have that they want. Trade is fundamentally based on having a common ground, where, despite the similarities of intelligence. And since Trade becomes impossible, the next recourse is force, on both sides. So the question of whether or not we should take the unobtaintium by force comes down to more or less an aesthetic one. Would we prefer to have the metal or the Na'Vi's Culture or the ecosystem itself. The "Heroes" decided that the culture itself was more valuable, whereas Weyland-Yutani or whatever the "evil" corporation was decided they prefered the metal. At this point there is no "Agree to Disagree" and the subject comes down to force. Admittedly, had the Na'Vi opened up to more than just one person about the true working of their culture, et cera, this becomes a more reasonable debate across the whole spectrum of those making decisions, instead simply one "hero" forced to act. One can suppose in the future they still have message boards . Of course it makes for a dramatic story, but the Na'Vi are risking annihilation by simply being insular. They are the ones that kicked the Humans out of their anthropological research, which would have revealed all of the "sacred" things in the forest given enough time. The Corp hack runnning the operation has no idea, more the moment of crisis the Na'Vi never said why they where resisting other than simple survival or superstition. So maybe the Aesop of this story is that, if something is valuable to you, make sure you are able to express its value adequately or be prepared to lose it to those that don't understand and have guns. And that is certainly a lesson that can be applied to Objectivism.

The movie is visually stunning as advertised, and there really wasn't a philosophical cringe moment in it. The thing that makes me want to scream though, is as Far as the Plot goes its not horrid, its just stolen. Any Science Fiction Fan that doesn't walk out of that movie, as I just did, and say, I just saw Dune (with elements from the Game Alpha Centauri too no less) is deluding themselves.

This is actually an interesting application of "Goodwin's Law." More or less, the point is that once a conversation has descended to the level of invoking the Nazis, the first person to bring it up automatically loses the argument. So, the silver lining in all of this? We Win! That is, if they play by rules including Goodwin's Law .

I have to say that, on my first read-through of Atlas Shrugged, I did think Dagny was a blond, but that may have just been wishful thinking on my part, and was, I as I later discovered, incorrect. But, as for Rand's heroes, I never really thought of them as very handsome, in particular Hank Rearden gives me the impression of someone who looks like Abraham Lincoln when he first took the presidency. Of course we know the veiled threat in the Aryan comment, that we are no better than Nazis. I guess if you take the most "charitable" impressions of them in B-movies, the cool calculating super-scientists, I can see how someone could make a similar caricature of an Objectivist. But the actual historical Nazis, National Socialists submitting their will to a government, group, and race, could reasonably be described as the absolute opposite of an Objectivist. Indeed one of the key strengths of Rand's philosophy is that it applies to all people at all times, regardless of race or gender or any of the other holy grails of liberal politics. All that matters is the ability to reason, which I am sure that every member of Homo Sapiens can do, and everything follows from that.

Although it is tempting to save "the best" people, either the smartest or the most attractive, but this is a survival situation, and you need to select people for that first. I would be looking for people from ages 18-40, hopefully as many as possible that are happily married, that are healthy, emotionally stable, industrious, and adaptable. 1. Healthy: Obviously you want people who will last without the benefits of modern medicine, for the first generation will be the foundation for all the rest. The longer these people can last, the more of their practical knowledge can be preserved and passed down. This would also include the subcategory of "Fertile" for obvious reasons. 2. Emotionally Stable: I cannot think of a more stressful situation than starting society again from literally nothing. If anyone gives up or breaks, that would be just as good as death on a New World. 3. Industrious: Everyone has to be willing to work amazingly hard to even survive, this includes the sub-categories of entrepreneurship and sheer stamina. 4. Adaptable: I suppose that intelligence is the major subcategory here, but inventiveness and the ability to come up with new solutions to new problems. From these characteristics you then can start choosing people that have particular skills and knowledge that would be useful, and yes, the most smart and beautiful too.

Just Signed Up, And Frankly I'm Excited to actually play with fellow O'ists. From my experiences with other MMOs, namely WoW, having rational, free-market oriented people is clearly the best way to victory, even if those people wouldn't at first describe themselves that way. Those for "the greater good" fellows are pure cancers, fellows who generally hate themselves, and strangely, generally hate the game too. Hopefully we can get something good going. See ya in Norway!

Big Fish has to be one of the worst for me, specially when he "saves the town."