Dikaiosyne

This is too cool not to share

Its funny these are the same people that are crying that America is importing to much, and trade imbalances are killing us. If you think about it, this little transaction is an export of pizza to Mexico (or the Mexican economy in general), and an import of wealth into the United States. How is this not a good thing? Of course, such people tend to be anti-trade and anti-immigration in general, but it would be refreshing if they actually thought before opening there mouths! Personally I say, Applause to that Pizza Chain! They are fixing the US trade imbalance one pepperoni at a time!

I would simply like to offer my thoughts on this in my opinion flawed movie. While the premise of the movie is refreshing. its execution is in my opinion mediocre. A few points. 1. While the first half of the movie is creative and enjoyable, the second part, after the seizure of his bank account by the IRS, the movie falls into a malaise. It is at this point that movie stops being, to use Ayn Rand's definitions, romantic and begins to be realistic. Now, being homeless and having no money is a cause for frusteration and depression, but in my opinion, Will Smith's character shows little grace under pressure. I can understand the hero myth almost necessitates a hero must go through the dark woods, into something that truly threatens him, but he must remain a hero. Especially in the scenes where he yells at his son, that speaks more for his failablity than his heroism. And while it is understandable for a person in his situation to be at wit's end, it destroys some of the sympathy and admiration developed before. It is also of note that the commentary and exposition of the main character stopped at this point as well. What is seen is Smith's character merely reacting to his circumstances, simply enduring, and not really thinking. The Why for all of these hows fades into the background. This may have been a side effect of the movie's makers not wanting to truly embrace greed and selfishness as virtues, and it also leads to a cluncky chruch sequence that feels out of place. And while Smith pretending with his kid that "dinosaurs" where after them, and that is why they must sleep in a subway bathroom, it would be better if the audience explictly understood that they are doing this, pursuing the main character's dreams, because it is the right thing to do. It was done better in the beginning of the movie when the useful counterpoint of the unimaginitive and fearful wife was provided. The sequence left me drained and frankly depressed, and this is not resolved satisfactorally at the end for a cathersis. 2. The "exceptional" quality of the main character is not played up enough, while the symbol of the rubik's cube, and his short solliquiy on his work habits where useful, one never gets a sense that Will Smith is actually a good stock-salesman. There is the one line that got, "31 Pac Bell accounts" and the empty words that he has done an "Exceptional Job," but at that point in the movie I had no idea what these words actually meant! Considering how big a factor numbers and money had become in the plot and how much the audience could relate to these concepts they where conspiously not used to qualify his success. While I could empathize with the 5:30 PM pickup from daycare, the $250 selling price of his bone scanner, the $600 he lost to the IRS, nothing is really satisfactorally given to say that he has really made it. Honestly I wasn't sure that there was a useful justification that Smith actually deserved the job besides the fact he was the main character! Just one peace of dry humor, and the movie basically ends. 3. The Ending is unsatifactory. As had been hinted before, the ending doesn't do the movie justice. There is no great release and carthesis of exultation that should have happened. The ending while still probably realistic, it wasn't romantic. While it does try a little bit the "state of happyness" line, I really didn't feel the joy that should have came with the happy ending! All of the built up kinda fizzles in the one crucial moment of the movie. I may be nitpicking or may just not have gotten it, but I think that this movie could have been much better and I cannot give a the place of honor and love I can give other recent romantic and heroic movies like Serenity or V for Vendetta. Sorry for the essay but for a movie with so much potential, it is disappointing to be let down like this and wanted to understand why it disappointing in this fashion

You cannot forgot the "In Soviet Russia" Jokes The Classic: In America you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, the party is always trying to find you!

Be Patient

At best mythology is just pedalogy, a way to teach people about ideas in a concrete way, at worst it gives mystics a blank canvas for bad ideas. See FDR was a good president or the example of Robin Hood.

Honestly, by all of the metrics that I have seen, Ireland seems like one of the freeest countries in the world. It is one of the most globalized, with almost free trade, very low taxes, and see above it has a very free press. And just one fact that I have seen (but have no record of) is that twice of the amount of investment capitial is moving to Ireland from the US, than is moving to China from the US. Plus there is almost no language barrier. I am honestly surprised that is it not on more people's radar screen. http://www.enterprisesurveys.org/ExploreEc...px?economyid=93 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Tiger https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...os/ei.html#Econ I still bleed Red, White, and Blue though, I wish that our country could be so enlightened.

If you want a true advantage of capitialism it is continious bloodless, revolution of the political economy, to use words that a Marxism may understand. With "communism" and central planning, the government is entrenched, there is no way to change bad policy or corrupt leaders quickly. I suppose a communist country could have democratic elections, but considering the history of letting powerful government is that it rarely contracts of its own free will, and rarely lets power out of its grasp. Thus, the only recourse is a bloody revolution, to remove the government in power. But continious bloody revolution is not a good state of affairs. With Capitialism, if a good or service is not delievered adequetcy, the market will respond much faster than a bureaucracy, new competition will appear, old unproductive firms will die off, basically, if something does no good whatsoever, it will fold to the reason of the market, no blatant force is required. With a system based on force, force can keep the unproductive using resources that may otherwise go to a better purpose. Thus the system is propped up until the massive contradictions assert themselves and destory the system, in a very ironically Marxist way. If property rights are protected, people are allowed to start and stop business at their will, and force is banned from the opperation of the market, then you will have a dynamic and flexible system that can move to efficiency faster than any bureaucracy can manage.

I mostly reject your premise for the question, that the government is responsible for the economy in the first place. If the government does its job, (the protection of liberty and property rights) then the economy will take care of itself. People are generally democratic and capitialistic by nature, and therefore, in a "natural" enviroment the market should work by itself. In regards to your question about whether outside forces or inside forces are keeping "third-world" nations back, may I suggest the book "The Mystery of Capitial" by Hernando de Soto, a Pervian Economist. It can shed some light on the true "inequalities" keeping poor countries poor.

About Taxes, Instead of hard legistating means of payment, instead mandate a maximum percentage of income per people that the government can take legally from law-abiding citizens, fines could still exist in the legal system. This would probably have be mean the elimination of rate taxes, like sales tax so the heavy spender and light spender both pay the same amount of taxes given income, and taxes on savings (all acumulation) like a property tax which is paid for by previously earned income and already accounted for in previous fiscal years. Also, in keeping with the spirit of this action, a constitutional limit on the amount of debt that can be held by the government must be placed, because that is money to be paid by future taxpayers by either future taxes (by collection) or future inflation (by printing money). Suddenly a government has to work with limited funds, forcing a nice "starve the beast" affect and killing the unneccessary parts of a government. My personal favorite number for the flat income tax rate would be somewhere in-between 10 and 20 percent, although considering what we know about free enterprise, even 5% or 1% could suffice in a prosperous free market, property rights economy. Other ideas "The Government shall only give payment to parties directly providing a service to the government, excluding taxpaying." Also in the preamble, get rid of "general welfare" it gives too many left-wing wackos ideas...

Well, this confirms that China is still communist for anyone who had any doubt. "Rover must come with us for the good of the State" Or our Dogs too sweet to be considered private property? Note this will probably not impact the West in quite the same way as had say, computers or clothing been confiscated instead

Its interesting how a different set of mores invade baseball, hockey, and other sports. How "thuggish" and moronic behavior is exulted. Nominally, baseball is a game, with a set of rules facilitating that. It is a decent and positive thing by itself, and allows for physical competition w/o endangering law and order, and normally life and property. It allows people a stage to do amazing things, and is a showcase for human action and efficacy. But one of the problems is, even in this perfect stage for the power of human morality, its influence is rudimentary at best. Although baseball or other sports maybe a tool for discovering morality (doing your best, learning from failure, taking responsiblity, and exulting in victory) it is interesting that a second set of mores has also taken hold. So instead of respecting the abilities and beating your oppenent within the gaming arena, you wish him (or her) physical harm. Allow an understandable reaction to competition, this is the first mistake in a line of immorality. Games are great because the options are limited within the rules. Sports, especially professional sports, need an effective governemnt to protect the life and property of its willing participents. Injuries to exceptional atheletes can represent huge monitary losses to both the individual and the business that imploys them. The classic example of this is Pete Rose running over Ray Fosse the apposing catcher to score in an All-Star Game. Although the merits of an All-Star Game are debatable, Rose dislocated his victim's shoulder, and permenently eroded Fosse's skills as a baseball player. This assault not only affected the man's health, but his livilihood. Fosse never hit for the same average or power or played the same caliber of defense than in his 1970 All-Star Year. All of the plunking in the world of the offender couldn't bring back this man's talent. While Rose's career was not similarly physically injured, obviously there has to be a better solution than an eye for an eye when dealing with excepentally talented individuals in an excepental situation. Simply returning thuggish behavior inkind destroys with the rules and stablity of the game. So to the modern examples like the plunking of A.J. Pierzynski do NOT need to be "dealt with" on the field. It is a legal matter dealing with life and property, not one of pride and an "eye for an eye," One for a proper government that protects rights and life to deal with.

Although it would take some work, a creative idea would be to intergrate Galt's Speech into the entire movie, and have the truncated narrative follow the theme that is being presented. So therefore, the movie starts I Media Res and works its to its conclusion following a tight, philosophy backed plan. Although that would definately be taking a creative license, then the two most important factors of the book, the plot and the message could be combined into one film. And also Shrugged would definately make a better 3 1/2 movie than that train-wreck King Kong

Just in case you where wondering (like me) Angelina Jolie as a Blonde: http://www.lifeorsomethinglikeit.com/wallp.../01_800x600.jpg

I know Rand's stance about an "only gold" montary system, but need an economy only have currency backed by gold? Any other thing of value would do nicely, any kind of property that is physically transferable. So, if choose to offer a currency backed by corporate stock (assuming a productive company) it would be just as valid as one backed by gold. Of course gold is almost always in demand, therefore making it a good store of value, but how can it account for ALL of the value in an economy? Why not just balance the currency against all of property and real value in an economy. But because having a complete list of goods and services borrowed against would be inane, we just call the total "debt." This is the nature of fractional reserve banking. Ideally, any money going into a bank is loaned out to finance the expansion of property and value, making a new business, or reinvesting in an old one. This loan is repaid by the new value generated by the business, therefore backing the the currency generated. Of course, this system is not perfect, so there will be some "inflation" in the economy if the money is not loaned out wisely, but this is covered by the gains made by the first savers by having an interest rate equal to or greater than the rate of inflation. An unfortunate result is that now all savings needs to be inside the system to retain value. Granted this is a fickle beast to be tangling with, a great Pandora's box, but the potential for large expansions in real value is almost impossible to ignore. Inflation must be constantly fought, the job of the Fed, or less the beast would fly out of control. As long as inflation is kept under control, (that is less than 8%, anything higher and the nightmare scenarios start cropping up) Fractional Reserve Banking is a good tool in the management of a modern economy. I wanted to give a reasoned counter arguement. But have at it!

Also of note: the website for the movie is very good. All the of the trailers are available in high definition with good sound, and there is an interesting hangman game you can play there. You are given a quote about government and need to guess who said it. Use too many letters and its a short drop and a sudden stop for Guy Fawkes. I think most of the people here would enjoy it. A Little hint: tragically there is no Ayn Rand quotes, though they would be very appropiate. http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/index2.html

The best example of an anti-life movie in my book has to be "Big Fish" Most the mini-stories have a very leftist tilt to them. It gets funny after awhile though, to see so many bad concepts potrayed in a movie.

Paraphrasing Star Wars here, but applicable: "The More that you tighten your grasp, the more free minds will slip through your fingers."

If I was an Inuit, I would be thrilled about climate change, Ice = Death, or at least the lack of life. Less Ice = More Life Or if we believe "Day after Tommorrow" People, their unique skills are going to be needed southward. Then maybe the US can sue them for withholding vital knowledge. Either way, its win/win for the Inuit

Anybody else see what is wrong with this picture?

This thread deals with two things. First, I would like to call attention to this NPR article about the Interactions of the Real and Virtual Economy in World of Warcraft. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5032947 It reports on how virtual items are being sold for real money. Value is being created in a purely aritifical space. Although the article sometimes sounds like Ben Stein reading dirty magazines, with its commentator's clunky use of game terminology (Its really quite funny), its very interesting how a new industry can grow up in an entirely virtual space. This seems to be the next step in the evolution of e-commence. Where Amazon and E-Bay and others are selling real items without the overhead of a storefront, now completely virtual items are being sold in a completely virtual world. There is even a going exchange rate for the converson of US Dollars to WoW Gold Pieces. To me this just shows the power of the interent as a marketplace. Now almost completely free of government intrution, people can buy exactly what they want at a price that the market will bear. New Completaters seem to crop up everywhere, and websites detailing the price differences keep the market competitive. Like Rand says, With a Free Mind, goes a Free Market. And since the Internet is one of the great advances in freeing the mind, it logically follows that a Free Market would pop up inside of it. And also since the buying and selling of products goes hand in hand with intellectual and personal exchange, nothing like this has while been seen since the Greek Agora. A center, not for production (although with the WoW example, this maybe changing) but for consumption and exchange. This also demonstrates the tragedy of any government's interfernce with the medium. This is true capitialism in 1s and 0s. Any interfernce that would reduce the freedom online, would also reduce its value. The world has added a Second Beating Heart, and it doesn't need any plague in its arties. Second, almost in response to the Solow Model Thread, Just as the "New World" being discovered added immensely to the resources of Europe, couldn't these internet "New New Worlds" also add value to the real world. Arguable, they are creating value both for the metaphysical enrichment of the players, and the company that creates and preserves them (Blizzard). But now a secondary industry is growing up around the product. You hear enviromentists say, you need resources to grow, and anything beyond the resources of a world will result in death. But inventing a new world brings so much new to the table. Theoricially an infinite amount of these worlds can be created so therefore an infinite amount of value can be "mined" and brought into the real one. Isn't that an answer for theorically infinite growth? So, instead of the Science Fiction Space Opera dream of going to the stars to support our consumption, maybe we have to look at the circuits instead.

My Trifecta for the best has to be Asimov, Heinlein, and Herbert, as echoed by serveral other people. They offer well thought out worlds to explore for the escapist inside.

I was merely thinking of the minimum required to stand, that would be the Metaphysics, Episitemology, Ethics and Politics. With Two Feet, you can go places with the idea.

[The mention of Objectivism while 'standing on one foot' in another thread (link), led to this discussion, which has been split off here.] Just out of curiosity, being new at this, if Objectivism on one foot is "in metaphysics, objective reality; in epistemology, reason; in ethics, self-interest; and in politics, capitalism." Then what is the other foot of Objectivisim? Would it just be the "one foot" applied? It seems to be the broad base of Objectivist thought: (from most broad, or rather univerisal) Metaphysics, into Epistemology, into Ethics, into Politics. Maybe its just I don't get the reference. This is one the I voted for BTW

LITANY AGAINST FEAR I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. From Frank Herbert's Dune, not exactly Objectivist, but defininately reason and life affirming