Clawg

I guess there would be a similar thread if McCain had won. So you settle with being 'relatively good'? In short term this is bad. In long term this is only good if people will learn from the experience. To be honest I have my doubts about that. The only way is through direct eduction. People will not know why their system failed if they aren't educated and ignore principles. Did it? Abortion aside I don't exactly see how the religious threat was stopped. It was merely replaced.

Remembers me a little of the cultural revolution in China under Mao. Oh, by the way: http://www.mccainkids.com/

Well, what it comes down to is that they destroy wealth selectively (the only power the government has) in order to prevent the destruction of more wealth. Maybe.

Because the system does not allow you to vote for an 'empty seat' (or limited executive power, whoever gets elected as president) you are forced to vote for one of the two canditates. So you should vote for the lesser of two evils. Making a political point by not voting is futile in my opinion. It's not that you can signal a concrete message to the rest of the country because there can be various reasons why one does not vote (lazyness, lacking political knowledge etc.). And even if we assume that you can deliever a message like "the two candidates do not offer real alternatives" then it is still difficult to see how this would actually help in an argument in order to promote a positive philosophy because ANYONE (party or philosophy) can use this to support their position, not just Objectivism.

The point is that if you want to make a 'change' then election day is four years too late. Political change is done by spreading philosophical ideas, not by casting a vote.

Yes, if you (or they) can show that at least one of their species respects your rights. But because a rational faculty is required to be able to respect someone's rights you have no reason to acknowledge any right except those of their owner.

True. The depressing part is always just the phase when you still apply your old views to the new situation.

This will devalue the stocks and money because what good is money if you don't have the right to spend it as you like? Rewriting the rules... Thunderdome? "Two men enter, one man leaves!" Mmmh... I guess now it's time to get a gun, lots of fuel and move to a remote area

That's what the New New Deal will be for.

By that definition soldiers, policemen, etc. are evil. You probably mean something along the 'initiation of force'-line.

No, don't you see? With inflation the national debt will sooner or later return to zero.

Maybe the pope meant Silicium when he refered to sand.

Now the question is how long it takes until the bailout bailout.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...ilout-plan.html

“We are all going to need to sacrifice,” Democratic nominee Barack Obama of Illinois said in his floor speech. “We’re all going to need to pull our weight, because now more than ever we are all in this together. That is part of what this crisis has taught us.” Mr. Obama Thompson? The only good news about this whole mess is that people see how they are dependent on the US. Even Chavez agrees on that I like the comment on peoplescube.com: "World to USA: 'Fix world ecomonic crisis so we can get back to hating you'"

They're also talking about motor sports.

You might get a headache and fall asleep but you will certainly get no permanent damage to eyes (or any form of bad vision). That's why it pays so much and that's why lawyers aren't and shouldn't be free. Who else should pay them?

+ there are millions who would eagerly hear of Capitalism and Ayn Rand if they just had someone guiding their way. Invest your time in those people first, if that is what you want.

Keep the answer short and get down to the principles. Capitalism is the recognition of individual rights. The current system is not Capitalism but a mixed system between Capitalism and Socialism because individual rights are not fully recognized. For example wars are paid by taxation, not by voluntary donations.

One can't be consistent with the bible. What they are basically are doing is to apply Logic to logically wrong ideas (or consistency to inconsistent ideas), so they agree that logic (or the rational faculty) is an instrument to discover truths about reality. At the same time they deny that the rational faculty is an instrument to discover truths. Thus their philosophy can be much more easily defeated in an argument than the usual notion of mysticism that man is incapable of using his mind for such matters, that is the very reason why such religions are not very succesful. If this (that they can easily be converted to a rational philosophy) is the source of the respect you have for them, then fine. They have more potential to become Objectivists than people who deny the rational faculty, principles or ideas, yes, but their religion itself still cannot be respected more than any other religion.

Become a lawyer if it pays that much. Bad vision because of bad lighting?

Yes, ok, I did mention that in the following paragraph. I guess I had the 'superficial' integrity in my mind, but in the end there is always some contradiction in any evil philosophy.

Yes. In order to be rational one does need *some* knowledge about reality, i.e. that one exists, that one has an identity and that one has a consciousness. But this knowledge is available for everyone with sense organs and a functioning brain. If, in a complex moral issue, a man struggles to determine what is right and fails or makes an honest error, he cannot be regarded as "gray"; morally, he is "white." Errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience. But if, in order to escape the responsibility of moral judgment, a man closes his eyes and mind, if he evades the facts of the issue and struggles not to know, he cannot be regarded as "gray"; morally, he is as "black" as they come. The Cult of Moral Grayness, The virtue of selfishness "The problem with liberals is not that they are ignorant, the problem is that they know so much that is not so." Reagan Integrity, independence, intelligence etc. are no virtues by themelves, they can be used for good and evil purposes. And no, that's not what keeps evil going on earth, it's the passive (active?) intent of not defending good. Evil is by default, you don't have to invest any effort to promote evil, except in order to play mind games to distort reality for those who you want as your followers. Again, an uncompromising stand on an issue is no virtue by itself. Or, to look at it differently: There is no such thing as an uncompromising stand on an issue in any 'evil' philosophy, at some point all evil philosophies are contradictory, that's why they are evil. An evil philosophy does not need to consist of "Kill everyone", a philosophy is evil if it does not follow consistent principles, if it is ok to steal, plunder and kill *sometimes*, just enough not to disturb the productive people of society too much. He was forced to face reality in his life, to endure the consequences of his action. A strong character would not need to be forced to face reality, a strong character would choose to face reality and see that his actions will lead to his own destruction. After all, in this case, he could have faced the death sentence. Why should it be necessary to be able to determine the 'degree of evil'?

well, the house didn't like it

Seems like the "New America" will have serious a smog problem.