RussK

I had lunch with someone the other day, and she brought up the topic of organic hair products, specifically shampoo. Even though I sarcastically rolled my eyes at the beginning of the conversation, while she was telling me about a new product, she asked me if I knew where to get "essential oils" for the hair. I'll be sure to send her your URL.

That letter has since been rebuffed by another letter, which is highlighted in this news article. The letter was written by "leaders of mainstream Tea Party groups," and they definitely want the new congress to use their position to legislate for the religious right: While it's true that there are a lot of 'tea partiers' that want real liberty in the social realm, the populist movement will be directed based on what the pop-leaders (Sarah Palin) says; and we all know which direction she wants to take the country when it comes to this issue.

I wonder if they can build an airport now? Makes one think about the quality of their nuclear safety.

For one, I hope that Assange and anyone who has colluded with him are brought up on charges, and this is besides the rape allegations against him. Nothing, that I can think of, can redeem this man, nor, for that matter, the libertarian, anarchist, communist, socialist, or anti-establishment fools that hold this idiot in high praise. Additionally, neither of those quotes from the interview are positive toward capitalism. As SapereAude pointed out, his statement is riddled with 'doublespeak,' which is jargon used to reverse the meaning of things in order to disguise real intentions or ideas. The first paragraph quoted can and should be used as a baseline for the second. For example, in the first paragraph, Assange has "mixed attitudes towards capitalism," yet, he "love markets." What type of markets are we talking about, if they're not based on capitalism? Not anything near resembling what we call free-market or capitalism. His description of the telecommunication sectors in Malaysia and the United States is also revealing about his true meaning, and how he is using the words "free-market" and "capitalism." In the description he declares that the telecomm sector in the U.S. is not free-market because, "everything is vertically integrated and sewn up"; however, Malaysia has a free-market because they have a "broad spectrum of players." Of course, the level of integration a market undergoes has nothing to do with how free it is. With this description, Assange's conclusions are anything but positive toward capitalism, and they don't even come close to using a proper definition of that concept. While his statements here can be chalked up as many things--except capitalist or free-market--I consider it, most likely, just anti-establishment, sociological drivel.

I hope that he gets over the illness as well. If I remember right, in "god is not Great," he establishes himself firmly on the left. Additionally, he identifies his prior extreme socialist ideas as being akin to the religious ideas he spent most of the book attacking.

What is your take on that particular quote by Howard Zinn? I don't know with a great deal of certainty, but I'd wager that Zinn's message here is not positive, especially according to the ideas of government that Ayn Rand espoused. While I'm lacking a whole lot of context--I've only read parts of this particular book, presented in various history classes--my opinion of the quote is that Mr. Zinn is making an altruistic point or argument. I think his point is that looking at and listing to the poor will impel one to assist the poor, which he identifies as justice. Of course, anyone can know what justice is without looking to the poor. However, I do think observing the poor--throughout the world, not just in the United States--can be an excellent tool for helping to understand justice and human flourishing. Poor and suffering can be looked at in many different ways with differing conclusions: poor and suffering from bad decisions (moral or amoral), or poverty due to an initiation of force, etc... Additionally, historical conditions of poverty can be considered. In each case there could be some beneficial conclusions made by the observer. For example, looking at the suffering of the Chinese people during Mao Zedong may lead one to various philosophical (moral) judgments about initiation of force, socialism, capitalism, and countless other things.

Yeah, some sort of hidden agenda as well as a possible money factor. I watched them interviewed on television last night and they used both 'pro life' and 'pro choice' arguments. At the end they said something about a woman's right being akin to the President's veto power. I was half way paying attention, but the stupidity of it made me cringe and chuckle. If I remember correctly, I think they said there was a potential money motive because of the number of hits to the website.

I almost tuned in out of curiosity after hearing what was going on, but then I thought better of it. Recently, there was a a poll that put "Dancing with the Stars" as the sixth most watched show, out of 15, for Republicans. In comparison, the show wasn't even listed in the top 15 for people who identified themselves as Democrats. Maybe what is happening is that Bristol is getting a boost from the 'all things Palin' crowd, and I wouldn't be surprised if Palin fans tune in just to watch Bristol dance; or if they think its some sort of battle that must be won for the Palin family.

I didn't see the utility for tablet devices until I started using a smart-phone. Now, because I can do most things on my phone, I rarely take my laptop anywhere with me unless I'll need to be typing for a long time. Tablets just expand that ability, especially for reading things of length and watching video. I'll be jumping on the first HP webOS tablet released, and, once that happens, my laptop will never be used as a portable device again.

Wow. That video is great; I think I'll share it on FB. I'm a little sympathetic toward the idea behind the Rally for Sanity. There are too many people, taking a ride on the populist train, just speaking partisan drivel. When people are angry, and don't know in a principled fashion why they are angry, then a call for 'sanity' is warranted and needed. However, as the video comically points out, some participants in the Rally are just as guilty of the same behavior.

Shame I didn't have opportunity here. I'd vote for dead people all day long: they can't do any harm.

It pisses me off too; it's what prompted me not to ignore this thread. I love TOS and have been a subscriber since the first issue. Craig Biddle has excellent content of his own, and I planned on listening to him at the University of Minnesota. For now--I can only hope for the situations impermanence--those things have been dashed. OT: Obviously though, Robert Tracinski has eaten his words yet again.

I didn't vote, and I haven't voted since 2006. In fact I don't plan on voting for a very long time. There is more than a touch of cynicism here, but it's based on various reasons: everyone seems to forget what has happened in the past every two year election cycle, the advertisements and candidates insult my intelligence, and no one usually comes close to supporting my values. For example, some people, those of substantial age, have experienced decades of elections; yet, because of the constant cycle of focusing on 'this' election--which happens every two years--partisan politics still exists the way it does. No one in their right mind can ascribe what they do to the Republican party, after years of evidence to the contrary. As for the current Tea Party populism, don't blame me for being hesitant to support it, given that most of these people were no where to be seen for many years, they don't have a principled understanding of what they're supporting, and due to their lack of principles, got so involved due to some knee jerk reaction. Of course, I'll be observing how these 'new' guys conduct themselves; if they do good, my cynicism can easily be cured . In regards to yesterdays election results, I think they're good for one reason only, which was already mentioned: it's going to become harder to get things passed. And, no, I'm not necessarily against voting; some of you seem to have had some decent people and topics to vote for.

I was speaking for myself, either way. I don't offer unqualified support for ARI: my support and attendance of ARI events and lectures is directly based on what the institute has accomplished--or sets to accomplish--generally spearheading the spread of Objectivism. Because of my qualified support for ARI, it's going to take quite more than a spat between two people (primarily), of which a non-philosophical letter has become a focal point, to throw my hands in the air and start crying foul. Additionally, I elaborated on why I said "Craig Biddle has no business adding more flames to this issue, nor does anyone else." You and others, not being the original actors in the issue, are not affected by it, except through your own choice. Lastly, Dr. McCaskey is a big boy, and can speak for himself, like he has already. Why do I need to hear from Craig Biddle what should be coming from Dr. McCaskey? McCaskey's own motivations for resignation were: How do the actions of all of these non-involved actors correspond with his intention? Obviously, they don't: TOS seems to have removed ARI affiliation, and ARI has canceled lectures. If one is being a mouthpiece for McCaskey, when such a thing isn't necessary because the man can speak for himself, and, at the same time, causing negative problems of the type McCaskey probably sought to prevent, then I'd say such a person "has no business adding more flames to this issue."

Craig Biddle has no business adding more flames to this issue, nor does anyone else. Dr. McCaskey resigned with specific intent: to prevent damage, etc... to ARI; however, people who are not even affected or who are not even actors in the issue keep running their mouths causing what McCaskey sought to prevent. Dr. Peikoff doesn't have to provide anyone a philosophical argument for his letter, and anyone who acts as if--or expects--memos, communiques, letters, to and amongst board members--of any organization--to be philosophically rich, is out of touch.

I saw your post when this thread was resurrected. It's of interest because you left webOS and went to android. In July, a month after I posted to this thread about my frugality and basic phone functions, I went out and bought a smart phone with contract. I made this decision after seeing so many people do so much on their device, and I finally created a facebook and twitter account, throwing myself into the modern internet--it wouldn't have been a complete surrender if I couldn't update my status while away from my computer. Originally I was going to buy an iPhone, because I had 'played' with a few before and their users like them a lot; however, I was somewhat apprehensive because I had become tired of the Apple ecosystem, especially in regards to music/video. I wasn't very open to Android phones because there were many more of those that I'd played with--everyone has them--and I knew exactly how they worked; it would have taken a good sell from the sales person to land me with an android phone and contract. Blackbarry was not of interest to me either, as I had been around PDA's for some time and when I see RIM, I think business. That's not a bad thing or even totally accurate, these days, but I didn't think my needs would be fulfilled by such a device. To further my knowledge in preparation for a selection, I did some online research by looking at smart phone reviews and information. At this point I learned that Palm was still in the game--slightly--and their operating system, webOS, was highly regarded. Primarily, what I found was that the hardware was fairly uncompetitive with the new devices, if not poorly made in the original Pre's case. Given the praise thrown on webOS, I decided to narrow my selection to either the iPhone or a Palm product, considering the later only if I could get a good deal. Long story short, I went to AT&T (iPhone), Verizon and Sprint (Palm) to test the phones and get contract pricing. I eventually settled on a Palm Pixi; the Pre felt cheap and breakable in my hand, and my thumb hit the 'roof' when typing the upper keys. The Pixi was selected over the Pixi Plus (Verizon) because Sprint offered better pricing. I purchased the phone itself online, from HP, for a very cheap price. My impressions of the phone are very good. The negatives of the phone are its slower hardware, somewhat poor battery life, and the lack of thousands of apps to choose from. However, the later is the least negative quality, because I use a lot of apps, and only learn of a need when I read a review of an app and say to my self, "I want that." The positives, however, are abundant: form factor, quick multi-tasking and functionality, touchstone charger, etc... Additionally, the Homebrew Community is great, although I don't use much of their stuff because its mostly for the Pre at this moment--there's no such thing as jailbreaking your webOS phone. I've unintentionally sold countless people on the product just by using the phone around them, talking about it, or letting them use it, and they are all android users--usually of the smaller form factors. Of course, I am sure to tell them that the hardware will be slower. I am very glad that I'm now on the smartphone boat. Additionally, like you I'm also going to be getting a tablet--next year for me. Since I'm on the webOS bandwagon, however, it will be an HP running webOS 2.0. I'm guessing, or hoping, that with the increasing popularity of tablets/pads/slates, the trend of large phones will decrease.

Nice to see this sort of distancing. I'm not sure how it will play out in the end, because I think the GOP has a lot of control now, with the movement having been taken over a while ago.

One of the positives that has come out of this is now I know exactly where Robert Tracinski stands. If he thought that way, why didn't he write about the problem before? I don't care what he retracts, if he even cares to do so, because his allegations were way too damning. I still had respect for him after the debate he engaged in about the agents of history and culture; however, now, that amount of respect has significantly diminished. He might as well totally 'jump ship,' if he already hasn't, and join the conservative movement that he's concerned himself with for many years now. mrocktor: I agree with you. There's no reason to mince words on this point: Dr. Peikoff used a strong arm tactic to get his way. That is his prerogative, and he is well within his rights and means to make such requests. However, this brings up a good question: how much authority does Peikoff, due to his philosophical and legal status, have over the institute as an organization.

Yes, of course my business would include a service rate for such instances. However, it would have to be a very exuberant fee, which you acknowledge. I would also set up a donation fund for those caught up in this situation, so the community could help out and the bill gets paid. I wouldn't agree that sacrifice fits into the equation of whether or not to accept or reject someones plea (and money) to fight the fire after not they originally didn't pay. That would really have to be a market decision, and it could go both ways. By both ways, I mean if the decision doesn't pay off, that negative result doesn't make it a sacrificial decision, etc...

I'm considering anyone who says that this home owner had his rights violated, due to the fire department's decision, to be insisting that this person had an innate right for the fire department to fight the fire. I was wrong in saying that there were "many" such expressions of rights violations. I falsely assumed that the two posts (12, 19) that make that claim were from two different people; but they were from the same author, you. Of course, if you think that the fire department was within their means to chose not to fight the fire, then my claim doesn't apply; however, since you are strongly claiming a violation of rights, then I don't think that is the case. Last night I got a 'tweet' about Elan Journo's, PJTV interview concerning this very topic, and today I watched it. The philosophical content of the show wasn't very deep, but I did learn a few enlightening things about the case, specifically concrete details which I had chosen before not to educate myself about. I was indeed wrong about a few of my assumptions concerning the organization and funding of the fire department--that's why the assumption was formed as a question to begin with. The fire department is funded by taxes, and the $75 is extra funding. Since I started to learn the details of this case--I really wished I hadn't wasted my time--I decided to inquire more about the subject. What I learned was that the fire department in question belongs to the city of South Fulton, Tennessee, and they offer service to the whole county of Obion. For this service, they require $75 annually from anyone in Obion county, not in the city of South Fulton I presume. Additionally, the home owner knew that he had to pay the fee, but he thought that the department would come even if he didn't pay. Probably the least important thing I learned, but does slightly challenge Ellan's disbelief that $75 isn't enough to support the departments activities, is that Obion County had a population of 32,450 in 2000, which equates to $2,433,750--of course, the population for the city of South Fulton needs to be taken out of this figure. Before I learned about these details and afterwords, I knew that this wasn't some gross violation of rights by the fire department or the city of South Fulton; and the works of Mr. Reisman isn't going to refute that conclusion. Nor am I going to convolute the issue by equating the fire department's activities, how the city organized that department, or how they offer services to people outside of city limits, with socialized medicine. And, yes, I understand the coercive nature of government monopolies, but that cannot possibly be the cause for such strong condemnations of rights violations in regards to this department, especially as his rights would be violated whether or not the department fought the fire, given that particular principle. In any case, however, I am in agreement with you in that this type of situation is prone to improper government activity. Furthermore, the solution, limiting the government to its proper roles, should definitely be brought up when discussing this case. Really, it should be a primary argument, and with it the discussion of 'blame' is moot, where as the other arguments (the primary discussion) concerns fault--fire department or home owner. Where I may have a disagreement, in this portion of the topic, is that I think it's possible for this home owner--and Obion county--to have worse fire services under a LFC system. While capitalism is morally superior (of course, practicality is implied), I think your last paragraph is too utopian in regards to the unknowable, potential market possibilities that would be open to the home owner under capitalism.

It seems to me that many are taking the position that the home owner has some innate right to have his house protected from fire. I keep reading that the the fire department was 'wrongly' prevented from working on this guys house. Is it not true that the fire department is operated and managed by the township (or whatever) that made the law in question? While government activity in certain services can definitely muddle the situation, especially the moral aspects, the government in question should be able to manage that department as they see fit. Furthermore, if some township has a meeting and they decide to organize a fire department with voluntary funding, while it is not necessarily in the realm of proper role of government, I don't see cause to determine such action--or the department--as a rights violating entity. It seems fairly simple to me why the department was 'regulated' from not protecting the homes of owners who haven't paid the fee: that department would have a hard time operating if people only payed when their property was on fire. Additionally, LFC would by no means prevent such hard decisions or necessary regulations; if my hypothetical company operated that department, the same regulation would exist, except it wouldn't be called regulation or law, it would be called my business policy. I've got no problems with a benevolent attitude toward fighting house fires; I even said it would be commendable if someone would have chosen to fight the fire in question. However, I am still very confused about why this guy is being labeled as a victim, while the fire department operators (including government) are being labeled as demons. He failed to pay $75 dollars; the fire department operates on a fee basis (almost like insurance); and since he didn't pay, his house burnt.

is important to understand in order to properly understand the rest of my post; it's there as an alert that what follows his highly generalized, and many particulars were intentionally left out. Since part of the debate is whether it is moral to have a fee based fire service at all, I think such generalized (maybe even idealized) defenses of such a system--not as it is, but as it should be--are in order. And really, I shouldn't say that it is "part of the debate" as, from what I've read and seen on television, it's the crux of the debate.