Apprentice

AisA-- Is this the sort of thing you're looking for? It's a very basic source--nothing too in depth. http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,...i341236,00.html

That was the sort of problem I was having with a few of the questions upon trying the quiz last night. I didn't even finish because trying to figure out how to answer such things was giving me a splitting headache Edited to say: On the other hand, the site hosting the quiz included a clickable ad linking to this place. So there's a redeeming quality for you

I've also been trying to put together a movie cast in my head lately. The characters are just so much larger than life. I can't imagine anyone doing them justice--especially Galt. I'm really excited to see the portrayal of him, but think I'll just be disappointed. (Admittedly, this is probably because I'm absolutely smitten with him... )

Well, that's good--then you can gripe about all the local and regional issues you want But you'll not vote on the US Presidential race?

AutoJC, I'm not happy about any of the candidates either, but figure I'll vote for the one who's leading the country in the wrong direction the least quickly. My reason for that is that I figure if I choose not to vote, I forfeit my right to gripe about what's going on...

But why should a man want to lead the country under the above-listed ideas? What's the fundamental difference between women and men that makes it such a gap? And don't just say feminimity--because this is the aspect of Rand's concept of feminimity that I'm just not grasping well. And to add on to daniel_shrugged's comment: And I wouldn't want a man to find my sexiest attribute to be the idea that I'm "demure" in some way either. I'd expect him to equal me and appreciate my strength as I appreciate his--otherwise, I wouldn't be with him. Sorry--this is one of the few things I just don't "get" about Rand's philosophy or world view. I need a better explanation!

y_feldblum-- That's strange--I've already written this reply once, and it didn't show up. I've had that happen a couple of times now. (I should probably take GC's very good advice and write my replies in a word processor first. Then I could save them and simply copy and paste in these situations as well as having my spelling and grammar checked automatically ) Anyway, thank you for the links. This is just what I was thinking about earlier, except in terms of low carb and low fat labeling instead of organic foods. There's currently a particular "consumer advocacy" group that is exerting political pressure to force labeling on chain restaurants. I will start that as another thread, though--I've noticed a particular dislike of thread drift here

Here is my personal question--and feel free to disregard (as I know you will feel free) any question specifically because I haven't read this essay of hers. So I'm in an uninformed position on that respect. But, in light of ZiggyKD's quote here: Regarding that, couldn't it be unselfish and an excruciating psychological torture for anyone who wants the job? I frame it in the light of this: If the president does not deal with equals--if he only deals with inferiors, he'd still have noone to look up to. Why is it not a loss for a man to have noone to look up to, but for a woman it is a loss? It seems to me that noone should want that job because the person to fulfill it would simply have noone to look up to. I'm afraid I'm not understanding the difference there. This could be partially because I haven't read everything that Ayn Rand wrote yet, so if you'd point me to a text that illustrates the answer to this question really clearly, I'd be much obliged. I've read many things on her views on feminimity and still haven't quite understood this particular issue. While I want men to look up to, when I say that's it "men" in the sense of human beings--rational ones. Admittedly, I've found some men that I look up to and not many women except Rand herself. The Hillary Clintons of the world aren't exactly an option--she's repugnant. But is that a socialization issue? What if I found a woman who was better than any man I'd ever known? I doubt I'd respond to her sexually, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the presidency. (A lot of women reportedly thought Clinton was sexually desireable--if that lead them in any way to vote for him then that situation has problems of it's own .) All of this just seems to me to point to the idea that noone who actually wants the job of president actually should take the job. If a John Galt took the presidency, he'd do it out of self-interest--to get people out of his way I'd think. Why wouldn't a woman untertake it for those same reasons? I'm rather lost on this!

From the article: Well, this pretty much says it all to me--for them, it's not an issue of whether these people should morally be able to run their own lottery. It's about revenue collection, which, I'd say is the entire point behind why gambling has become a state venture and not a private one. Disgusting is exactly right.

I haven't read the essay, but hopefully will soon. As such, I'd be interested to hear your reasons behind this. I hope you'll post them soon and not leave the board hanging with nothing concrete to respond to

Good point! I thought about the liability angle and it being in the company's self-interest to promote safety, but didn't even think about insurance. Thanks

Thank you y_feldblum and CF---I appreciate the input! I was just thinking of similar issues in incentives for private certification of food quality and government-mandated labeling the other day, but hadn't drawn the parallel to this situation until you brought this up. Another issue for another thread, I suppose

AshRyan--This is why I have no problem with Joerj11's assessment of the situation. He stated the logic behind such a claim and did it in a constructive manner. WGD did not--he chose to spend his time, instead, insulting members of this forum. WGD--I was merely giving you the courtesy of the knowledge that you were reported, by whom, and a basis for understanding why. I thought I should take responsibility for my action.

AisA---Thank you--I enjoyed your explanation to the reasons behind this Andrew--Thank you for the reference--I appreciate it. I've been trying to get ahold of that book for a couple of weeks and it's not at any local bookstore I guess. I should try an online source as it's one of the next on my list. Thanks again! Everyone else--Still, if you can shoot me down, I'd love to hear it. I don't want to live with contradictions or errors in logic, so if you have anything to say, I'm inviting criticism

Hi AisA Well, it didn't start out on the basis of workplace safety regulations exactly. It started out on the topic of smoking being banned in some cities. My stance was that an employer should be able to make the decision whether or not employees and customers can smoke based on his private property rights. He likened my position to a position in which the employer should not be subject to government regulation of equipment safety. He gave the following example (I hope I can post this--I don't think it's a terms of service violation to post already-public, non-copyrighted material. Let me know if I'm wrong and I'll fix it.) My thinking is that yes--the employees could have chosen not to be employed at this place. The business is private property and as such, the employees don't have a right to that job. It is a voluntary contract and if they don't care for the terms, such as equipment they'll be required to use/not use, they can exercise their ability to turn the job down. This is (vaguely) similar to the context in which an employee is free to turn down a job where the owner allows his employees to smoke in the office. In either case it's completely irrelevant whether there is high unemployment in the area because their "need" of a job is not a claim on the employer's resources. Can someone please shoot me down on either issue? Also, if the business owner were to tell workers that the equipment they were using was safe when he/she knew it was not, that would be problematic. But I'm assuming both the workers and the employer have complete information about the safety versus non-safety of the equipment. I should probably just drop the entire argument and leave that forum. This one person that I quoted above has been very polite (despite disagreeing with me) and simply is looking for information regarding my view, so I'd like to finish replying to him. Others have chosen to not really debate, but instead to repeatedly call me "grotesquely arrogant" and a "horrible" person So perhaps I'll duck out after dealing with this one person.

Can anyone point me to a thread discussing government involvement in regulating safety in private businesses? I haven't been able to find quite what I'm looking for yet and am not sure if it's been discussed. I'm in an argument with someone over this and need to solidify my position a bit. Thank you--sorry if this request is in the wrong place!

WGD--are you aware that you've just made three completely unnecessary Ad Hominem attacks in one post? And offered nothing of value in the post in terms of a valid argument? Frankly, I'm reporting it--this is just uncivil.

It does not change the actual quality of the movie, or in this case the quality of the event. Do you think that A isn't A if someone with a vested interest identifies it as A?

I'm aware of that. I read the other page and in fact took the quote from the first page. My point is that you potentially have some good arguments regarding whether or not the conference is worthwhile to attend. The only end you achieve by arguing about Shawn's employment is undercutting your own credibility. By your own words, people use arguments like that when they have no other arguments.

That's not really a problem, though, is it? They begin with the opportunity to participate and only get kicked off when they become a nuisance by trying to convert others and offer nothing of value. Plus, censorship of expression is a concept that really only applies to government. Individuals are free to surround themselves with only those others who's company they find valuable for trade. If a poster is doing nothing but detracting from a forum, you're not taking anything of value away from the site by banning him/her.

WGD-- Consider your views expressed in this quote: In that light, why would you want to use information about the identity Shawn's employers as an attack on his credibility? I'd think that sticking to your arguments of whether or not the event will be worthwhile to attend based on the ideas that will likely be imparted there would be sufficient.

Plan ahead? Plan what? I'm concerned with living life. There's nothing beyond the grave, so I don't think it merits a lot of consideration other than avoidance for as long as possible. I'm not sure what sort of planning you're looking for.

Dondigitalia-- I think I've figured out the source of my confusion regarding Fight Club. I may have misinterpreted the ending completely. Whereas, I thought Jack destroyed Tyler (which to me meant destroying the anticonsumer and anticapitalistic wishes), it has been suggested to me that he simply destroyed the need to create an alter-ego to carry out those wishes (because he could carry out such things on his own). That makes more sense, considering he stayed with Marla, didn't seem terribly regretful about leveling the credit card companies, etc... I'm less confused given that explanation (Note--It's not that I think Dondigitalia will necessarily care that I'm now less confused, it's more of a matter of coming back to this thread to correct my mistake )

Richard, I think he was just referring to "they" as the Barnes and Noble that he works at specifically, not "they" meaning B&N or bookstores in general. I wonder if Capitalism is shelved in the economics section at my store too? Could be why I'm having trouble finding it... OP---My favorite is definitely Atlas Shrugged. It was my first book of Rand's--I can't even pick it up off the coffee table without smiling

Buiq--I think you need to consider the difference between principles and implementation. If you were an objectivist, you would be required to constantly look at Rand's ideas about specific subjects and question whether her opinions on those particular actions or subjects follow logically from her basic principles of metaphysics and epistemology. O'ists disagree on plenty of issues of implementation. That's why boards like this exist--they are conducive to the kind of discussion that examines how we should implement principles. If I post something here and something is logically wrong with what I say, I hope and expect that someone will shoot me down so that I become aware of any contradictions (flaws) in my logic. Then I can check my premises and see where I've gone awry. People make mistakes--making mistakes doesn't mean you're out of the objectivist "club". Choosing to knowingly live with a contradiction is a big problem, though--that is directly against o'ist principles. Well, let's go back to the idea of immunization. I'd be glad to donate my time and/or money to a voluntary, private organization that immunized those who could not afford it if the situation endangered my life. I'd be glad to pay for the immunization of someone who was of value to me if their life was in danger from not being immunized against something. If a private company that produced immunizations was to set up a program that used part of the cost of my immunization to subsidize the immunizations of those who couldn't afford it, I'd respect their right to run their company as they see fit and I could choose to patronize them or not. These are three separate methods of practical implementation for you. As to your comment about deferring volutary taxation to law, I can only guess to what you are referring. To the notion of funding the military, police, and courts? That issue involves first acknowleding that those are the only function of government--something which you haven't done yet, so I'm not sure that you're ready for this discussion. But her idea on that involves voluntary clauses in business contracts that provide a voluntary basis for individuals to support the necessary work of the government. They work like insurance for people who want legal protection for contracts. That concept isn't deferring the idea of taxation--I'd say rather, it isn't taxation. It's a voluntary part of a business contract by which men of self-interest can choose to support the necessary functions of government. Rand praised the founding fathers as those who set up a country based on reason and rejecting the sacrifice of one man to another. In some respects, however, the language of the Constitution leaves too much open to intepretation of politicians and people who would set up programs for government services that should not be offered. That's how we got to this point today where we have income taxes and healthcare that is constantly becoming more socialized. You're setting up what's almost a package deal here by saying that because politicians have implemented the Constitution badly, that objectivists must dislike the founding fathers. That's not true--it doesn't logically follow. I still think most of your difficulty in understanding these issues has to do with confusion on implementation of principles and that you have not accepted that you shouldn't live with a contradiction. But if you advocate taxation, you are operating under the intent to do such things. You're definitely advocating theft, and by confiscating that personal property you seek to enslave men. When you take away the products of their livelihood, that's wrapped up in murder. (And I sure feel like I have to bend over every time I get a paycheck and see what the government's taken out of it )