konerko14

Was this the right decision for the government(FDA) to ban certain spinaches for the time being? It seems to be a violation of property rights, but on the other hand, its to protect the country from a spreading disease. Does the gov't have the right to intervene during times like these?

What does that mean exactly with how the cable business now operates? What was the outcome? For digital cable though its a monopoly in certain places. And the government purposely made it that way.

Who makes the rules for each government company? Who decides what that company accepts in terms of payment orders?

I guess I assumed. I didnt think the government would create companies when there are already competitors.

Since there are competitors in markets such as garbage collection, postal services, schools, etc, why does legislature try to keep government companies in business? Several years ago when no competitors existed, it may not have been quite so obvious to some that these government businesses shouldnt exist, but whats their excuse now? What is the purpose of keeping these government businesses around?

How can you get rid of the penny? Can the government just say, "The penny is no longer worth anything." And thats it?

One of my co-workers brought to my attention a law in Montana that forces companies to accept any type of payment(cash, credit, a bag of coins) that is offered to them for their services or products. I let him know of my disapproval of this law, and to my surprise he quickly blurted back, "Why?". Theyn I remembered I probably wasnt going to encounter many people who valued, or let alone understood Capitalism. So I proceeded to educate him and go into as much detail as my knowledge would allow me. I tell him calmly and confidently, "The government doesnt have a right to force a business to accept a certain type of payment . It should be between the customer and the company to determine the terms upon which the contract/agreement is established." He responds by explaining briefly as to why it became a law in the first place. "An old lady went to pay her water bill and all she had was a large amount of coins. The company refused the payment and turned off her water." I asked, "Did it say in their contract that the company could refuse a certain if it wished?" "I dont know," he said. I could tell he was thinking of a way to bring the discussion back to an emotional level as opposed to figuring out the issue objectively. "But if thats the only money the person has, the company should accept it." "Yeah, they probably should accept it, but the company should have a choice as to whether its an appropriate payment or not. The company shouldnt make their decisions based on emotions- they need to have valid reasons for their actions." The discussion fizzled from there, as he began talking jibberish and Im pretty sure he was completely lost at this point, mainly because his fundamentals were screwed up. He said something along othe lines of, "Youre right. Making companies accept these payments would kind of be a violation of their rights but if thats the only way the person can pay then they should have to accept it." I realized that his contradictions and his statement blatantly saying that its okay if the government violates rights of others, meant that discussing this issue with him is pointless. I just thought you guys might be interested in hearing this little story.

I was having a conversation with my dad about his cable bill. He said it was costing him $50 a month now with Comcast. I asked him why he doesnt change to a different provider, and he informed me that Comcast is the only cable service that provides service in this city. I was confused because he lives in a fairly nice, large city so I asked him about Time Warner, DirecTV or any smaller company. He told me that Comcast provides service in this city, Time Warner in another city, etc. I got confused again since this is America and I know competition is a big part of this country. I found this little bit on Wikipedia, explaining the circumstances with cable providers in the US now: "Many cable systems operate as local monopolies in the United States, as cable companies typically receive exclusive rights to serve a region as a result of a franchise agreement with a local government. In some areas that is changing as competition has been allowed to enter the market, including, in some cases, city run cable systems." That doesnt seem right to me that companies can receive these exclusive rights. Its eliminating competition and forcing individuals to pay a huge fee for their service if they want cable when competitior could easily charge less than Comcast. My dads cable bill from Comcast has actually been rising for the past couple years. Comcast can get away with this because there are no competitors, and individuals have no other way to get cable. This sounds like an idiot plan from legislation that has gone horribly wrong.

My intention was for the childrens book to have illustrated stories or explanations about Objectivist principles. So there would be that in the most basic of way about individualism, objective reality, selfishness, reason, etc. There could be stories with a heroic being(a human preferably) that demonstrates all these characteristics and portrays them in an easily understandable story. There might be a few childrens books that are about these topics already, but its in a bunch of seperate books. A childrens book teaching the Objectivist principles would be very beneficial because all the lessons and principles would be in one book. I think a lot of kids would want to achieve that hero's status and since they have an illustrated picture in their minds now of what a hero is, they can look to him for inspiration and guidance.

Do you think it would be a good idea to create a book for children teaching them the very basics of Objectivism? I think the earlier a person learns these principles, the better.

I see what your viewpoint is now. You think that its from tightening of the muscles during a sneeze that cause the eyes to close, and not some form of innate knowledge. But if there was solid evidence that eyes closed during a sneeze to protect them from germs, would that prove that the act is an instinct?

Well for an entity to have knowledge, doesnt it have to possess a mind? They dont have it innately, at least. How is that different from any animal instinct? If they have to commit the act, it can still be knowledge. But when an animal acts on instinct it just does it, it doesnt think about it. And yeah, I do think the germ theory is built in for certain humans, which is why their eyes act automatically during a sneeze.

Because a rock has to fall when it is dropped. The eyes during a sneeze dont have to close- in fact, some people dont have this reflex(if thats what its called) and some people do have it. If you do have it, then you cant control it which makes it seem like an instinct to me. So, I think certain people have this knowledge innately(they are acquainted with a fact that germs have a high risk of getting in the eyes during a sneeze).

knowledge: acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles. With my sneezing example, the mind automatically knows the concept of closing the eyes during a sneeze to protect them from germs. The dictionary defines "knowlege" as 'Acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation.' But then instincts in animals wouldnt be considered automatic knowledge because they werent learned through study or observation. So I just used that definition while leaving out the last part of it.

A few days ago, Angelina Jolie officially landed the part of Dagney in the Atlas Shrugged movie. http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=092106_a...as_shrugged.htm

What makes you think that the mind doesnt know to shut the eyes during a sneeze? I made a mistake of using the word 'body' instead of 'mind' in my question, but now you know what I mean.

From my earlier post: "I want to point out one reaction by humans that I'm curious to know if it can be called an instinct, or just a reflex. When humans sneeze, the eyes automatically close and you have no control over this. Logically, it would make sense that the eyes are shut to keep germs and mucus that explode out of the nose from coming in contact with the eyes. This is knowledge, however, and the body must know this innately if it is the reason the eyes stay shut during a sneeze. Instinct or reflex?" What makes this different than an instinct?

I think most of us know Ayn Rands take on sex, but what Im interested in is what the negative consequences are of having sex with a person you're attracted to but dont admire as a hero.

Yeah, I understood what you were saying. But I wanted to say that the reason it is wrong to have sex with a corpse or animal isnt necessarily because the act would be divorced from spiritual values, but because the entities didnt give permission to the living human.

A lot of you are mentioning hedonism. But what is wrong with pursuing a pleasure that doesnt have any negative consequences? You would experience the sensation of that pleasure without negative consequences, so in effect, that would be a good decision to pursue the pleasure. Im trying to connect this to a sexual experience. What are the negative consequences of having sex with a person you dont value? If there are no significant degradations, then seeking the pleasure doesnt seem to be a wrong choice. The corpse and animal didnt give you consent to have sex with them.

I want to point out one reaction by humans that I'm curious to know if it can be called an instinct, or just a reflex. When humans sneeze, the eyes automatically close and you have no control over this. Logically, it would make sense that the eyes are shut to keep germs and mucus that explode out of the nose from coming in contact with the eyes. This is knowledge, however, and the body must know this innately if it is the reason the eyes stay shut during a sneeze. Instinct or reflex?

It helps to take a lighter side to your fear, like this. Then you can see how ridiculous certain fears are.

I want to add a quick thing to my thread: You must say to yourself, "I am going to confront this fear, and I am going to conquer it." By doing this, it will ensure that you approach the situation with mental aggression and not passivity(just going through the motions). Concentrate on what you're doing, recognize the emotions youre feeling, and if you know how to judge objectively then stop deciding your actions based on your feelings, and start to use reason. I will take you through a detailed description of a hypothetical situation where a man confronts his fear of a dark basement: The man realizes the lamp in his bedroom isnt working properly any longer, and needs to get a new lamp he has stored in the basement. Right away, there are feelings of fear and anxiousness happening inside of him. He makes a courageous decision- as he admits to himself that this fear is driving him insane- when he says to himself, "I am going to confront this fear, and I am going to conquer it." The man reaches the stairway of the pitch-dark basement, with a flashlight in his hand, knowing that there is no electricity hooked up down there except for a small lightbulb that hangs near the steps, barely allowing him to see those clearly. He starts to walk down the stairs, and through each step he takes the more fear that builds up inside of him, and the more his mind is telling him to sprint back upstairs. But he recognizes these as irrational desires and knows that if he gives in now, then this fear will continue to burden him. He chooses to walk into the "abyss". His feet are touching the basement floor now, and takes a glance into the dark depths of this place. This is all it takes for his mind to start projecting frightening images of evil spirits and burglars hiding, waiting to consume him. He rationalizes for a second, trying to convince himself that he can get by without any lamp. But then he thinks objectively, as he remembers reading about emotions, and how they arent tools of cognition. He thinks to himself: "I can overcome this fear if I just walk through the basement right now. Thats it. Walk through. Forget your emotions. Get that lamp, even if the anxiety feels like its gonna kill you. Because in the end, there will be nothing to be afraid of any longer." So he chooses to walk further into the basement. His steps are slow and careful, making sure not to run into anything, since all he has for light is a cloudy beam from the flashlight. These initial steps he takes, dont seem to bother him too much- that is, until he moves his eyes from the floor to straight ahead, now face to face with what has scared him his whole life: the unknown. He keeps his eyes steady on the blackness ahead, watching to see if a dead man's spirit appears into midair, or a gunman pops out from behind a cob-webbed couch. He is nearly shaking with terror, as he is almost anticipating something of unthinkable horror to happen. "Nothings' happening," he says in his head, with the fear of the dark basement subsiding a bit. Now he chooses to walk further in, still not sure what to expect. His mind continues to be very alert, as he still somewhat anticipates a chilling event to happen. He steps over an old stuffed bear thats lying in his pathway, but when he does this he hears a distant but obvious sound that has come from the basement. He stands there like a deer in headlights, in shock, listening for the sound again. He thinks: "Dont run back upstairs. Confront this fear. This is the only way that you are going to overcome it." He hears something- a different sound, a hissing noise. The man stands there boldly, preparing himself for combat, if needed. He sees no one though, and he believes he has recognized the sound: its the water heater. Not a supernatural entity, not a man wanting to decapitate him, but it was the water heater. It was the water heater the entire time, but his emotions tried to convince him that it was something else. The man marches on, this time a little more assured of his surroundings. A few more steps and he notices the lamp he intended to bring upstairs. He bends down to pick it up and hears a soft but distinct noise. He wasnt sure if it was an external sound, or just in his mind or body like a ringing of the ears. He tried not to let it bother him and began walking calmly to the stairs. Then the man stopped- he took a glimpse all throughout the basement at that point, only to realize that there was nearly no desire anymore that was trying to force him to run away. A little apprehension, maybe, but for the most part he felt a sense of serenity. He thought to himself, "It would make very little difference to me if this basement were completely lit, or if it remains in the dark state it is in now. I conquered the fear, therefore, the fear is nonexistent now. " A couple days had passed and the man needed some old clothes that were stored in the basement, which he planned to sell to a clothing store. But it was late at night, meaning it would be very dark in the basement and he was wondering how he would feel if he went down there again. He couldve put off going into the basement until tomorrow when it would be lit, since he didnt intend to sell the clothes until then anyways, but he chose to go down now. He turned on the stairway light to the basement and walked down. Then he paused at the ground floor, only because he realized there was a very convincing smile on his face, and he knew that he wasnt afraid of this place any longer. He walked through most of the basement, trying to hear a noise, as he knew that no noise would scare him. But he wanted to experience this fear-free moment, the moment that used to turn him into a helpless victim. This moment now turns him into a proud hero.

Isnt selfishness different from rational self-interest? Selfishness is essentially "concern with ones own interests". Meaning, if an interest of his was life-after-death(Heaven) and all his acts were based on altruism, then that would be a selfish act- not something that fits into rational self-interest though. Or if he acted on random pleasures because he valued hedonism, then it would be selfishness but not rational self-interest.

After looking through charts of the growth of human population, it appears that every 10-15 years one billion more people will be on Earth. I estimated that out to be an addition of 70 billion people in 1000 years from now, as opposed to the 6 billion that inhabit Earth as of today. Or to present an even shorter range estimation, 200-300 years from now that would be an increase of about 20 billion people. First of all, is there a chance that these estimations will be accurate- why or why not? Also, would that amount of people(70 bil.)cause any severe problems such as overcrowdedness, lack of job opportunities, lack of resources, etc? And if this becomes a realization in the future, what would be the correct way to approach the problem? http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/humanpop_graph.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population