Richard_Halley

It is clear that communism is irrational. I see no need for further discussion on this point... as we have a large number of posts already in existance which make this plain. There are, of course, many people who may support communist ideas but who are not irrational. These people have merely made an error in judgment. Such people shouldn’t be banned. However, anyone who has been around here long enough (i.e. has made enough posts), and has been consistent enough in their views to show that they are not merely mistaken, but actually support communist viewpoints for communist reasons, is irrational and should be banned. Essentially, not everyone supporting a communist viewpoint should be banned. However, everyone who is a communist should be.

I keep telling people this... Eddie Willers would have been invited into Galt's Gulch, except for the fact that he wouldn't have went. Willers was unwilling to give up the world (particularly, the railroad), in exchange for anything. While, at this time in my life, I would certianly be overlooked by Galt, et al., Eddie Willers would not be given preference over anybody, because Eddie Willers would have been unwilling to take the oath.

Right Daniel... poetry doesn't need to have a plot, just a meaning. Any random passage, made look like poetry, wouldn't actually be poetry. Unless, of course, the passage happened to express a value or a set of them.

Good move, GC.

If lowering emissions saves them so much money, than Kyoto is completely useless. And besides this, none of what you said is relevent. Read the quote Marc K. provides from RadCap.

Kabana, Firstly, you did not address my point, which was: you think scientists are easily fooled, but you think they ought to decide what our laws should be. More importantly, as pointed out in the post by Marc K. quoting RadCap, it dosen't matter... either way, men should be free to produce.

Correct, if we had any reason to bomb ourselves, we would be moral in doing so (discounting that it is suicide and so, immoral). "Bombworthy," however, is a bad term. I did not say that we should bomb all civilians in Iraq, only that we are morally justified in doing so should it make a ground invasion easier (i.e. save the lives of our men). Explain this. If you are saying that Saddam was loseing his power to take what he wanted--that he lost control of some parts of the country--than we would not be justified in bombing those parts of the country that he didn't have control over. We wouldn't want to anyway.

Daniel, I would say that poetry is something like a marriage between music and literature. There are three key elements: 1. The words. (Like literature) 2. The rhythm (or whatever you like to call the sounds used in poetry). (Like Music) 3. The relationship between 1 and 2. For a passage to be poetry, it must have 1 and 2, and both must be meaningful and complementary.

MinorityOfOne, it is true that the seller's claims being true is considered an implied term of sale, but it is still a term of sale. So, AisA's question may be answered, using the principle I implied: No, it is not ok because it is a term of sale that the seller's claims must be true. If, however, there are no terms of sale, than the seller may say anything he likes, and it has no meaning in respect to the sale's validity. I agree, though, that, unless otherwise stated, the act of selling should be legally considered to mean that your claims about the product are true.

dondigitalia: See the thread entitled "Eddie Willers" for the reasons why Eddie was a "sinner," and for proof that, had he not been, he would have been brought to Galt's Gulch.

Young: Lets think this out for a moment. Anything of value in Iraq belonged to Saddam (it was used to support his regime). Any productive work produces something of value (by definition). Therefore, any productive work was in support of Saddam's regime. Usually it was not intentional support, but it is still support. By the way, young, I am getting quite tired of you presenting, as though it is refution, the argument which my posts have already answered. Especially since you never give any reasoning. Other readers of this post: You should read the thread on "fatalism's flaws," if you think that I am being harsh. I have been very patient with this "Young" fellow, and am getting to the end of my rope.

Assuming that the product is sold as is, i.e. there are no conditions of sale, yes. Usually, however, there is an agreement that what the salesmen said is true, in which case lying would be fraud.

Young: Your entire theory is based on the concept that all actions are effects. I have already shown that, since effect implies cause, this is not possible. The questions you ask require me to admit legitimacy of your theory--which I already disproved--and I am unwilling to do so. I don't have to differentiate choice because I have already shown that it need not be different. As for my reason for believing in my own volition: I demonstrate it constantly, and I may observe it (in fact, the fact that I observe anything is, again, evidence of it). Also, I may ignore my "hunger" and "desires," or commit suicide; these are only a few of the things which human beings do, and other animals do not. Firstly, you have given no evidence for this, and, indeed, cannot give any evidence of this--since any evidence would be proof that I can fathom them--so I will just ignore it. Secondly, the concept of fathoming (which means, to come to an understanding) presupposes volition, i.e. it is contrary to determinism. Now your second point is twice nullified. On a side note, your previous post dealt with neither of the statements made in my previous post. As such, your attempts to make it appear as though it did are either dishonest or simply idiotic. Either way, I don’t appreciate it.

If one contributes intellectually, they don't stay minimum wage for long. And if they contribute intellectually well, they don't stay under $15 an hour for long.

Kabana: You honestly believe that 17,000 scientists were fooled by "faux-scientific papers," and than go on to claim that we can trust 1,700 to decide upon the environmental laws of the entire world? You are deluding yourself.

They do retain their rights no matter where they live, but not no matter what they do. Someone who infringes upon the rights of others gives up his own rights. As such, Saddam has no rights, and those who bank roll him have no rights. Anyone doing productive work in Iraq, was bankrolling Saddam. While we may sympathize with their situation, and not punish them when Saddam is gone (which would, of course, be a waste of our time). We must not allow our concern for their "rights" to result in the death of any of our men.

I bet we have threads about why libertarian's ought to be "demonized." You should find, and read one.

Enticing is not fruad, nor any other sort of crime.

They are not, the owner of an establishment may disallow them from attending.

Young... you are still assuming that nothing may act without cause. This is a contradiction, and one which I have pointed out to you MANY times. Also, AisA is right, if one has no control over the content of their mind, than there is no way to argue that the content of ones mind is valid/invalid.

I have only seen it once, but you are going to get paid for me going to Ayn Rand Institute website, the URL for which I was typing into my browser when I noticed the link.

Money is very safe in electronic forms... however, it is often convienent/advisable to have some physical money on hand in case of emergency. Edit: I want to clarify that I don't think the government should mint said money.

Joe's answer was quite sufficient, except for one slight correction/clarification. Art displays more than merely a "sense of life", but more specific values.

I am pretty sure I bought my copy off of the philosophy sheves... perhaps it was changed since than, or perhaps my B&N is just weird.

It shouldn't be, stating the truth--or what one thinks is the truth--cannot be fraudulent. A slander/libel case should have to prove that one intentionally lied.