Brian

I think you'd guys would be better off moving to a really miniature-sized country and/or island. My top picks would be: Liechtenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein), Isle of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man), and Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey). Isle of Man is definitely the best pick, due to its combination of low taxes, low population, location next to Great Britain, and being English speaking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/world/eu...oice&st=cse Apparently the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted to name the killing of 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during WWI as genocide. Is there a difference between the mass-killing of a particular ethnic group and genocide? Is this simply a matter of semantics? Moreover, I never knew there were resolutions that dealt with definitions of events in an historical context. How does this work exactly? And what does it have to do with current foreign affairs?

I'm sorry if this question has an obvious answer, but why would Target agree to settle the case? Is there some benefit of settling a case instead of fighting it out? It would have been nice to see them fight at least based on principle...

I don't know any good books, but I do know of an article written by Adam Gopnik called "The Big One" from The New Yorker publication. Here is the link: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/08/2...currentPage=all

I second my right to a free iPhone! I'm pretty sure it's in the Bill of Rights somewhere. TracFone Wireless may have been offering this service for a few months, but the idea has been around a lot longer than that. In Michigan, my ex-girlfriend's sister had one in the summer of 2008. How was it used? Everything except in the pursuit of finding a job, of course. (Which, I assume, is their definition of "individual success" - but maybe not).

Those comics were pretty good. Are there any other O'ist-leaning comics out there? And are there any other comics in general which should be given praise? I would say Calvin & Hobbes is up there.

Hi, Rational_One. I didn't know you are from the Detroit area. I live right around the Detroit area and was wondering where you lived exactly. Myself, I'm on 13 mile in Fraser, 5 miles away from the Gangs and all the warfare. lol. Btw, what is that gang that has been painting those turtles everywhere??

As for myself, I've just turned 17 - and I'm a junior.

That is why Rand created Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged - they weren't able to deal with the world.

He is one of the worst Americans! Yes, he was anti-communist, but he accused people of being communist that indeed were not. Just like The Crucible by Arthur Miller.

There was a guy from MIT who took two years to figure that puzzle out.

Thanks, David. You seem to have hit the nail right on the head, so to speak. I will have to think about this a little more. Cheers! --Brian

I had no idea where to put this post, so I decided to put it in the Basic Questions section. I am concerned when many people on this forum (and else where) go into lengthy detail on why Objectivism, properly, should be typed with a capitalized 'O' whenever someone makes this mistake. Granted, I type Objectivism with a capital 'O' due to force of habit - but I want to make the argument as to why it should be typed with an uncapitalized 'o'. I think that Objectivism with a small 'o' is the highest compliment that one can pay Ayn Rand's system. We do not capitalize intrinsicism or subjectivism, do we? This is because they are accepted terms of understanding - look them up in the dictionary and one will see. If Ayn Rand has indeed discovered a third way of fundamental thinking (I do not have a problem giving Rand the credit for understanding this new way of systematically thinking), then to DISassociate the system from her exclusively and place it in its rightful category of legitimate thought immortalizes her right there with Plato and Aristotle. Before Ayn Rand, there was no explicit assertion by philosophers that objectivity was not only a standard, but a system. As far as I know, she is the first major thinker to raise the concept of 'objectivity' up to the ultimate abstract level (with the other two). Prior to Rand, 'objectivity' was something that was applied to abstract thought, not the basis of it. With this given, can anyone convince me (and others) why it should be spelled with a capital 'O' - even though objectivism has been a word even before Ayn Rand came around? Furthermore, even if you beleive it should properly be spelled with a capital 'O', why do you take it as a personal insult when someone does not spell it to your liking? Personally, I am indifferent when I read someone's spelling of the word - to me, they are the same. Best premises, Brian

What's this for?

When did he die?!?! Edit: I just found out the answer. This last Thursday. Reason: Heart failure.

I am afraid you will have to e-mail me if you sincerely wish to know what I think his "good points" are. --Brian

One should keep in mind that Kant never intended to be against individualism. It is an interpretation of others on him that has led to this. Many philosophers are misinterpreted, including Ayn Rand. Some people go so far as to state that Ayn Rand is a fascist. Here, Free Capitalist puts it correctly: --Brian

The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker is a book that has too much meat in it to simply slap on an ad hominem on it and walk away. He brings up a few good points, despite his virulence.

I picked up Anthem while I was in 5th grade off my father's bookshelf, for it was the shortest book in his collection. I have since read all of Ayn Rand's fiction and various essays throughout her nonfiction works. Now that my father is living with his brother due to a disability, I have inherited virtually all of Ayn Rand's books, all of Nathaniel Branden's earlier books, a Peikoff book (did he have more than one book?), the entirety of Leonard Peikoff's history of philosophy course on tape, various Branden lecture tapes, various Peikoff lecture tapes, and if I'm not mistaken, tapes of various Ayn Rand lectures as well. There are more tapes, but they are all together in a box that I do not feel like rummaging through. In addition, there are more Navigator and Full Context magazines than I can count. I am sure I have a lot to look forward to. Is this a philosopher’s dream? --Brian

Dear Stephen, what I am about to write is not necessarily directed to you, but to everyone else here that has made a post as a result of what I said, as well as to anyone else that is uninformed. It is not all about the Operating System; it is about all the applications that run on it, such as the Office programs. Yes, there are 'runners up,' but MS Office is considered to be the standard and you are Out of Luck if you do not use these programs when communicating with others. This is also easy to prove: MS products are proprietary. Try opening a Word doc in Adobe Acrobat and you'll see what I mean. Although there seems to be a tremendous effort to constantly upgrade the ‘bells and whistles’ of software applications to continue to make them fresh and appealing to the general public, there are those of us who rely on these products to do the jobs that they were originally intended to do, and that is create output that is proper and timely, especially when documents require wholesale re-construction at the expense of the author and the audience of these. I am not going to go into detail; that would be unnecessary, but I will if someone wishes me to provide examples. I have a friend who has just recently sent a long paper to MS development detailing the issues he has had with Windows, Word, and Outlook. He has put countless hours into creating this paper and dealing with the issues that it contains. MS couldn't pay him enough in consulting fees for the work he has had to perform as the result of having to deal with the problems with their products. The least they can do is provide him with free software since his work and suggestions are what allow them to make those trillions of dollars. He talked to a development supervisor in person because of the number of cases he has had to open; they also have called him personally on his cell phone to talk about it. He is also an industry professional working for the largest corporation in the world. They respect his position and experience. Also, he is a teacher of Microsoft Office products to clients, and part of his job involves extensive utilization of the Office applications suite producing technical writing documents. Although Microsoft did indeed provide a tremendous service to the world with their innovations, the very fact that they have received all of this money means that they have a responsibility to provide the level of quality in their products that is indicated by those earnings. I will use Hank Rearden as an example. Can you imagine him putting out the crap that MS has put out? --Brian

Because Microsoft has been unjustly attacked by Antitrust laws. Although they did not deserve the punishment given to them for violating such laws, I believe, however, that Microsoft is not a good company. If we, the customers, didn't put up with Microsoft's stupidity maybe they would produce quality products. They put out beta versions to be tested, but then it is sold afterwards under false pretenses. The purpose of beta release is to fix problems. Since they do not fix their problems after their beta releases, I consider their market releases to be beta. Therefore, I refuse to pay for it. --Brian

He went to a party and wore a nazi symbol on his left arm.

you have to set your priorities: a) the nation of Cuba, the father's right as primary custodian of Elian, c) Elian's rights, the d) the rights of his extended family in Miami. Cuba may be *technically* a totalitarian state, but until and unless they are 'charged' with a crime (as we did with Afghanistan and Iraq), then they are officially a sovereign nation and the citizens of that nation's rights are recognized as legitmate by all other nations. Just as the rule of law applies to an individual, so it does to a nation. Try to imagine a deadbeat father facing the State and the State says,"You are an a**hole, so we are taking your children away from you." The dad says, "You cannot do that because you have not tried and convicted me of anything." A crime is a crime if and only if a recognized state says that it is so. Ethics, however, is different. If you murder someone and the state decides not to prosecute you, then you are free and able to retain all of the rights that you would have normally. Remember O.J.? Everyone in the world knows that he did that crime and he is a deadbeat, but he retains his rights. There are many times when upholding a principle results in 'unfairness' and other idiosyncracies, but this is what we must do in the name of freedom and order. You can see what we have done with our wishyy-washy tactics of inconsistent imperialism in the court of world opinion. As long as we respect Cuba as a nation and do nothing (even now with it's supporter the USSR out of the way), we must respect the rights of its citizens. No one has a 'right' not to be in a totalitarian state without the political context that accompanies it. There are many libertarians (and O'ists) who believe that the US is a totalitarian state because of the controls and taxes - should we overthrow the government? Is it our right to do as we please to a sovereign nation? --Brian

Listen to Xanadu by Rush

yes that is him! thank you...I was honestly looking to search for members but I couldn't find a way to do it...But, yes, this is him.. I still don't know how to find a way to get in touch with him. He is virtually not online anymore. Neither of his e-mail addresses have responded to me, nor is he on yahoo or AIM. but thanks again. Brian