konerko14
-
Posts
297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by konerko14
-
-
?Where did Dagny, Eddie Willers, James Taggart learn their morals from. Im curious about these particular characters because they all grew up together. In the beginning of AS, Ayn Rand wrote about their childhood- how Dagny and Eddie would love doing productive work, have meaningful goals, and they loved Francisco. But then there was Jimmy Taggart, who felt sacrificing yourself to others was the proper way to live, that placing societys needs above your own is correct, and of course he hated Francisco.
?So what made Dagny and Eddie choose such drastically different morals than Jim Taggart, even though they had the same parents(Dagny and Jim did), they had the same environment. I mean, its definitely not unrealistic for brothers and sisters who have these things in common to have very different views on life, ?but would that not suggest that people are prone to accept certain values.
My fraternal twin brother and I grew up in the same house and environment. I read Ayn Rands writings and he read them too. ?After living through the same general events in life and both now being presented to Objectivism, why would I choose rational morals and he not hardly even be persuaded by the book.
-
White lies? How about when you receive a gift from someone and you honestly know that you wont get any use out of it. They ask you, "So what do you think of your gift?" What is the best way to handle this situation?
Heres some reply to consider:
-"I hate it, you bastard!"
-"How dare you."
-"And you call me your husband?"
-(lie)"Its perfect. I love it."
-
I realized something kind of funny when I was watching Spongebob that relates to this thread. I love when Spongebob does these countless amount of crazy things in his show that would otherwise be impossible in reality. But when Im watching a show with real people in it and I see the slightest imfraction of something that cant happen in this world, it takes away from the show.
Maybe because cartoons seem like a different world to me. They usually arent duplicates of our world, at least by the way their physical world looks. So Im able to enjoy certain cartoons that go against our reality, but I dont enjoy "real" shows that do.
-
Konerko14: You asked, in post 1, "What are the most common self-sacrificial acts people commit nowadays?"
My first question is "common - for who's culture and society?".
Any culture and society.
The next question that I have is "Why is this of value to you?" If, in each location, what is sacrificed is different then in another, to answer your question, "everything is the most common self-sacrifical acts".I want to know how the belief in altruism translates into these peoples' actions. Not all of them will make the same decisions but I knew there would be the most common acts between them.
-
I just reread one of my posts that I wrote awhile ago and I think it is very nicely written. Its post #6. Do you notice any flaws with it, or any comments?
-
I want to expand my knowledge on this topic, so hopefully I'll get some answers. What are the most common self-sacrificial acts people commit nowadays?
-
How does a person who says he doesnt judge other people choose a certain politician in an election?
-
Yes, the U.S. and Russia have a large number of nukes. France, U.K. and China have some too. I'm not sure if Israel officially claims to have nukes, but they have them. India and Pakistan probably have a few, and definitely know how to make them -- they've tested them. North Korea claims to have them. (check the Wiki for references)
Well that changes my whole outlook on this topic. I thought they all were trying to prevent nuclear weapons from existing anywhere. I dont understand why a certain few countries are allowed to have them, and others we spend billions of dollars to prevent the development. Are France, UK, China, India and Pakistan countries we can trust, but Iraq and North Korea the opposite, is that it?
-
And if the U.S. does not attack this country? In your hypothetical, are you assuming that they are very likely to attack, or that they are unlikely to attack the U.S.?
I dont know. I would think a country like Iraq that values destruction or a country that seeks power will probably be somewhat liberal on the use of its first nuclear attack- to prove a point and to show others what will happen if you disobey them. Another reason they will want to use it somewhat quickly is because Im sure they will know that other countries will be planning someway to destroy their nuclear weapons. Another reason is that they will know other countries are going to attack them soon, and Iraq will want to weaken them significantly initially. Whether they drop the bomb on the US or another country, I dont know, but I would guess they would favor dropping it on the US first because we're the most powerful.
By the way, does the US have any nuclear weapons now? Does any country?
-
If we assume that there is a good chance they will use them against the U.S., we should not allow them to keep such weapons.
If the US and others attack Iraq with warfare, Iraq will use their nuclear weapons. I dont think a trade barrier could be established either, since Iraq would threaten to use the nuclear weapons.
How could they get Iraq to hand over their nuclear weapons?
I doubt Iraq(or any country) would create nuclear weapons and give them up that easily.
-
People who intend to cause significant physical damage to U.S. people and property should not be allowed to gain and/or keep the practical means to do so.
How one stops them is something for the military to figure out.
Of course they shouldnt be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but a country can create them without other countries finding out. And once the country has nuclear weapons, who's going to start a war with them? Whats happens now?
-
If a country(say Iraq) proves to the world that they have developed nuclear weapons, what is the next step for the other countries, like the US? Do they begin their research and development into creating nuclear weapons? Would Iraq be able to control the world now, since they could threaten anyone who disobeys them with their nukes?
-
I would also ask the question of what the chances are of the the entire world gets nationalized and becomes one super large capitalist state at some point in the future. Having just one government is one thing, having a proper government is another. It's good not to conflate the issues: global monopoly on force would be good, and communism is evil. Ergo global communism is evil (following the tablespoon of sewage rule).
I was thinking some type of universal statist government would be more of a possibility because those types of communist, power-seeking guys in charge would use as much force as possible to unite the entire world, if this was their plan. How would a universal free society be formed since improper force shouldnt be used by them?
-
If the USA falls, then we're pretty much guaranteed a dark age of one kind or another.
Why do you ask?
It just seemed like a possibility considering how the majority of countries have an altruistic attitude towards life. And if the majority of the people in a country vote for their own country to be heavily governed, then why would they object against a universal altruistic world? And if most of the larger developed countries have accepted this "brotherhood" with one another, then they could probably force or bribe the other less developed countries to join them. And if a certain few countries decide not to join, they would probably receive an ultimatum: join or die. Their entire land would possibly get completely taken out with nuclear bombs, or like in North Korea, everybody would be forbidden to trade with them, or some other devious plan to wipe them out.
-
What are the chances the entire world gets nationalized and becomes one super large communist state at some point in the future? Is it possible? What would be the outcome if that happened?
-
For biographical info on this, check out the essay "The Goal of My Writing", in "The Romantic Manifesto".
Thats what Ayn Rand did with Atlas Shrugged. She portrayed her ideal man.
Also, how do I put a picture on the left by my name?
-
That might be true.. But could either Atlas Shrugged or ITOE or anything that Ayn Rand wrote have been produced without the lifetime of productive achievement she had achieved prior to writing them? (In which case, you might judge each consecutive project she undertook as the more "difficult" accomplishment).
But what was Ayn Rands ultimate goal in her life? -wasnt it to define a rational moral code for man and explain completely how man can and should act? I believe she accomplished this with Atlas Shrugged. Of course, she had to figure out these answers all through her life up to this point, but after AS was finished, not only did she write the best fiction book she could write but wouldnt you consider that her philosophy was now explained completely as well? She had achieved her highest goal. All that was left for her to do was add a couple details here and there(ITOE) and write articles based on her philosophy- but she didnt need to expend that great effort any longer like with AS. It just seems like her life would become very easy at this point and that her excitement towards life may have diminished because of this and in her mind it may have seemed like not as an important purpose to her life as opposed to her time up until AS.
-
I think AS was her most productive achievement- it took her 10 long, grueling years to complete. But with ITOE, I think she could write this book with a lot less effort because she had her philosophy so well defined in her head already, it was just a matter of putting the words down on paper. Even though ITOE may be a more significant accomplishment, I think AS required the most thought and effort.
-
Are you so sure Atlas was the peak of her life? Had she left us only with Atlas and that which came before it, her legacy would not have been nearly as great.To make an interesting analogy, look at Toohey after Sermons in Stone. He still did great(in terms of magnitude) work afterwards. It was more of his explosion on to the scene as opposed to the pinnacle of his career.
When I said 'peak', I was referring to her most significant goal in her life, which was Atlas Shrugged. None of her works were as important as AS, and I was curious if this had affected her.
-
While she was constantly improving on her writing skills and knowledge with her early books and eventually reaching her peak with Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand must have felt like she had an immense purpose to her life. Ayn Rands most productive accomplishment and the hardest goal she ever strived for was to write Atlas Shrugged. But after finishing AS, the projects she could work on inevitably couldnt come close to the significance of AS. So how do you think Ayn Rand felt in the years following the completion of AS, knowing shes already accomplished that peak goal to her life?
-
I dont enjoy brushing the snow and scraping the ice off my car during the winter time. I also dont like getting into a car when the inside is very cold.
This would be a product that makes winter car use a breeze. It would consist of a heating source that warms the inside of the car and melts the ice/snow off the windshields at the same time. When you turn off your car in the wintertime, it continues to drop to lower and lower temperatures inside the car and the windshields commonly get covered with ice. But this product could work when the car isnt running.
The problem is is that I need to figure out the exact heat source to use for the product. Friction, fire, nuclear fission, etc? I want it to be small and inexpensive. Like a box, and inside the heat would is being generated and spread throughout the car.
-
Back to my question one more time. What prevents businesses/individuals from polluting into the air, such as pollution that destroys the ozone layer? What rights are being violated?
-
Subscriptions and contracts. A private police force is a security-guard firm. Burns and Pinkerton used to be big names, so one of those guys could get the contract for security to this or that bank, hospital, or shopping mall. Check your local Yellow Pages for neighborhood patrols: although I've never engaged their services, I imagine you sign a contract with them for some amount of money and they agree to provide a service (such as property inspection, 2 drive-bys a night, whatever).
But what about those companies who dont buy contracts with police? What happens with crimes that take place on their property?
Also, why did Ayn Rand think police needed to be run by the govt if they can compete in an industry like any other?
-
You should take a look at this thread for more discussion on government financing under Capitalism.
But if they are private police companies, why would taxes still pay for them? Stan Jones(libertarian) suggests having the aggressors of the crimes pay for restitution. Would this work well?
A new product idea
in Productivity
Posted
A lot of people dont have that option. I dont think the people parking on the streets or outside choose that spot over an available garage. People who live in apartments usually have to park in a parking lot or an outside driveway.
My product idea was ideally suppose to be a cheap, natural resource that could heat up a car without using any power or external source. ?Is there a natural resource that has heat coming off of it always- like a certain rock, or a chemical. The product would target people who dont own new cars that have fancy technology, and their car(like mine) would take a very long time to warm up.
This product would have come in handy to me especially today. I live in Great Falls, Montana and its -20 degrees(wind chill of -40) here right now. Going outside is torture. I wonder if the bums freeze to death in these situations, or maybe they just hang out in Walmart all day. They too could use my product- keep it under their shirt or something.