Charles

Know a priest from school days, whom epitomised everything about Elsworth Toohey.

Self declared communists should be banned in this forum. Anybody currently of a socialist/marxist stance, who has been touched by, say, one of Ayn Rand's books should be welcomed and his/her questions entertained. However should they decide, or it become evident that they are in total disagreement with Objectivist principles they should be revoked.

EDIT: All quotes that follow quote Oakes. I currently own no land. I am leading a productive and happy life. Go figure. Ever heard of rented accomodation? Land is not a precursor to your life. a. I own no land b. person X owns some barren land Q1: Why does X owe me money? Q2: Why does X owe everyone else money? So your taxing developed land aswell now? **crazy math** Have you any idea how many situations this applies to? You appear to be a repressed Communist, at the very least an ardent socialist. Your continued defence for your LVT shows a basic failure of understanding of Capitalism, Objectivism and logic. I suggest you read through, and follow up the reasons stated against the LVT in order to gain an understanding of the above.

I have had the DNC on in the background for a couple of hours. I am British, my knowledge of American politics is limited, though I can say with due certainity now; regardless of tactical voting - I could not vote for the Democrats. The Convention started with a sermon by a Priest (who uncannily resembled Ned Flanders, any Matt Groening fans). This was followed by a typically over the top rendition of the US national anthem by a mexican immigrant. A series of democratic mayors then "spoke from the heart" on issues such as job losses, medicare and prescription drugs. Al Gore has just made an overly emotional plea to vote, at all, cos every vote counts - and then kissed his wife Tipper. But I have to say worse than the party playing up on all the petty prejudices, and emotions of the crowd with constant musical backing, video streaming and screams of Kerry/Edwards is the crowd themselves. Who ever it was who said its suprising how for the nation with the most freedom how little they use it, is absolutely correct. Just thought I'd bring it up; for anyone wanting a taste of American Politics switch to BBC Parliament . It lasts four days...*groans*.

Is it me, or has the number of PC - games being released dramatically slumped over the last year or so? if so, does anyone know why? (x-box?, lack of microsoft backed games?)

This seems to be a contradiction: through tax you try to obtain a percentage of wealth made by another for the 'good of society'. You are arguing for a tax on land that hasn't been developed, yet by not being developed it isnt producing a profit from which a tax might be paid? If the money for development is being coerced into government hands, the lands future as nothing, as valueless is secured. By imposing taxes on un-utilized, yet owned, land you prevent development of it in many cases. Not to mention: the obvious loopholes created when you tax only undeveloped land... I see a nation of plots containing foundations, or whatever legally constitutes utilizing... This, like so many forms of taxation, would have a wholly negative effect on the distribution of wealth. Imagine a field: this field is owned by an individual, who sees its potential - yet cannot afford to develop it for the next three years. What will be of greater value to society: that man being taxed, the time it will take to develop that land being increased substantially; OR three years from now, that man's business opening; turning inert, valueless space, into profit, putting it into the economy of transactions between all mankind? man creating value? or man paying for an idea he may never get a chance to put into action? Money doesn't come from nothing Oakes; and it certainly don't grow on trees...

What "profits" are you talking about? If it hasn't been utilized: its not producing...no profit....

The distinction is made between all thats come before us and us as the pinnacle of nature. We were created by it, and yes are now subject to new rules that do not apply to the rest of nature - rules of cooperaton - which we must identify ourselves. As I have stated; a claim to land is as useful as it is recognized. If you are utilizing the land, and you came first, your claim is strong. However to claim empty land, say a plot of land outside a city - is still equally valid - as long as it is recognized by others, by the law. You have to me more pragmatic about it; if x lands on the moon with equipment capable of development, and states that land within a 5 mile radius is his - yet some bogus earth company has been selling plots within that radius to the public, years before, it is obvious the claim falls to the man who is actually there, and is capable of reaching/changing that land. In difficult cases the legal system takes care of things weighing up the factors. Of course; there might be land that is of such significance and obvious gross benenfit to humanity that laws are called that prohibit -certain- types of activity or industry from taking place. Such laws apply to Antarctica - which has been declared outside national boundaries and only projects of scientific endevour are permitted. Again; Recognition, Feasibility, Legitimacy. Finally: You want to Tax claims to land?? If you want to encourage development, dont tax. If you dont wont potential business to be scared off by government interference; do not tax.

We are nature. Where planets condensed out of hot gas, and life out of basic elements on some planets, volitionally conscious beings evolved out of this life. Everything is still evolving; choice is our method of evolution - we adapt the land, and each other to our choice, yet within realities boundaries. Objectivist thought is that the most succesful way to do this is for your choices to correspond to reality, i.e. they are rational. The reality is we adapt the land, the resources to our design; if I do the adapting I am responsible for it. If I land on a previously uninhabited planet and start mining; it becomes my domain; I lay claim to it. A claim is worthless unless people recognise it; this is where government, in fact reason, comes in - I have to make a reasonable claim; It would be unreasonable, and unfeasible to lay claim to the whole of Mars if it is the only other planet we have contact with. In fact this chain of thinking gives me rise to ask you this: Would beings with a volitional consciousness from a distant planet have an equal claim to land, as it was originally neutral, a part of nature?? Would we have claim to theirs?

Mountains. I love scaling different peaks, of different heights in different climates; whatever. You get a real sense of accomplishment looking back down. Having said that; There are a couple of guys who climbed all the way to 20ft below Everest's summit and then deliberately didn't go the full way - something about proving mans respect for nature. Not sure what I think about that.

1. Ayn Rand (100%) Click here for info 2. Cynics (69%) Click here for info 3. Stoics (67%) Click here for info 4. David Hume (61%) Click here for info 5. Jean-Paul Sartre (59%) Click here for info 6. Nietzsche (58%) Click here for info 7. St. Augustine (57%) Click here for info 8. Aquinas (56%) Click here for info 9. Aristotle (56%) Click here for info 10. Thomas Hobbes (51%) Click here for info 11. John Stuart Mill (45%) Click here for info 12. Plato (43%) Click here for info 13. Spinoza (40%) Click here for info 14. Kant (30%) Click here for info 15. Jeremy Bentham (28%) Click here for info 16. Epicureans (26%) Click here for info 17. Ockham (14%) Click here for info 18. Nel Noddings (11%) Click here for info 19. Prescriptivism (4%) Click here for info Curious. Not sure there answer selection is by any means complete. But Stoicism seems accurate, needless to say Rand. Though cynics? Probably truer than I like to admit. Nel Noddings could be lower...

I agree; In a battle of ideas an irrational set versus another irrational set, i.e. emotion v.s emotion just heats things up more. A secular, rational argument could be the only succesful way of 'bringing them round'. Having said that, I expect those playing the xtian card (Bush) are doing it tongue in cheek anyway and trying to kill ideas with guns. Iraq anyone? Ayn Rand states in CTUI, that since God died, as it were, Society has just filled in the blank. So instead of doing things for God, we do them for society. The thing about Marxists is; thats exactly what they say about themselves too.

Indeed: Marxism stands for life on earth but fails because it doesn't know what it means to live. Religion stands for life post death, and succeeds in so much as it knowingly prevents life now.

Many analysts would have us believe this is not a bad thing.

1) Most people are born into families, and most familes own some degree of property or land, and failing that - are renting accomodation with the intention of acquiring it. In such unfortunate circumstances as not to be born under someones auspices and through intent, i.e. an orphan child, it would be correct to say you are born in a world where nothing is yours, beyond yourself. It may be true that others get a better start in life, but it is also true that ones suffering doesn't weigh on everyone else, and doesn't demand our suffering. Bear in mind that no matter where you start one thing is true: potentially the world is yours to gain. 2) If your concerned about the idea of completely privatized land; then consider that just because highway 101, or hospital x are owned by such and such doesn't mean that there can't be government trade standards that demand for instance; no racial discrimination, no treatment for x. Assuming you can pay; the service is yours; and as long as we need medical attention there will always be hospitals in a capitalist society.

Interestingly; in the UK there are no minority objectivist, libertarian or any such parties. All minority groups are either single issue, extreme left + two fascist. That leaves the party that most advocates small government as Conservatives, or would have been Thatcherism. I dont think I can vote for them.

I think the question of whether permissing current, but lesser evil for advancing of your own current agenda is right or not has been raised? Should I start a new thread? An example is the US election; voting for either Bush or Kerry, is voting 'evil'; both represent strong government; One may be more so than the other - and I know that has been the point of contention in several threads. But is there no minority party whom you (americans) can vote for?

Sounds quite interesting. At the center of reason is survival, its the basic premise - to be focused upon the biological effort to enhance and prolong life cannot be a bad thing, assuming it goes hand in hand with the mental efforts required. I shall approach Dr Wallace's work; though with due caution.

Since I came onto this forum in April, I have observed a lot of interesting discussions. In many of these the Speichers have drawn my attention to lots of interesting resources, and introduced to me to objectivist thinking on a lot of issues. In a few more direct instances, Bearster has set me straight on a number of issues in a number of threads. Its a shame to see these people descend into petty discussions about technicalities masking a personal slogging match. Be reasonable; address the issue at hand not each other if you no longer have respect for that persons opinions.

An interesting if not amusing example to apply your hypotheses to. It raises a couple of points; one as identified - whom are moral subjects? But the main observation - that of higher considerations - the result of which is perhaps the ultimatum 'dishonesty is unacceptable unless it aids a greater truth' is worth pursuing. If taking advantage of people through trickery and deception is being done for no other purpose than hording of wealth it is irrational and fails to consider negative consequences. If however, the deception is the price of gaining the means to do greater things, it may be justifiable. For instance, if aquiring the wealth to set up a successful private school means taking advantage of consumers by playing on their own irrational misgivings, is it justified? If we define things in terms of the individual and one sees a way to subordinate others to ones own advantage with no risk to themselves, is it moral? more so is it ones duty? I think that would depend upon how one defines themselves; if one judges oneself by how happy they are, by emotional standards rather than objective, rational standards - Then such a view is quite easily possible - the risk to longevity is neglible to such a person, and the potential risk to his happiness is easily controlled. If, however one invests resoures, attained through mass deception, into a project of scientific endevour, one which would aid the survival of a small group of people with access to the technology and would be truly in their self-interest - is it right?

I think we agree on this. Would you not agree that habit frames our emotional responses; and that it is putting our reason into action and actually -living- in a rational way that can change what we experience as pleasure and pain. I.e. Not only the choosing but the conscious enactment of your values that builds an emotional base for correct judgements. One might say; Conscientiously programming a correct conscience.

Emotions are not inherently evil, neither is government - both are necessary to some extent - BUT as emotions should never take control of you, government should never take control of society. I think this better explains my thinking. As emotions, through conscious habit, can be directed towards more creative/positive efforts, government can be directed to the areas it is needed, by the more rational members of society. I concur. Where emotions become an end in themselves your value system becomes evasive. To do so is to fail to reckon the nature of emotions.

I am interested by the dialogue between Bearster and the Speichers; If a correct moral choice is refuted having been seen by your mind through reason, i.e. if it is consciously chosen against, is a form of evasion. The other form being described in this dialogue is that of not even reaching the stage of rational judgement and pursuit of choice through lack of effort, i.e. apathy. That which clouds the mind to choice; to the pursuit of choice, is emotion. I would hence say emotion is the fuel behind evil as Steven does; HOWEVER - as government is a necessary evil (a thing that must exist, albeit it the smallest possible and theoretical level for the upholding of universal law and protection of freedoms) so emotions are our necessary evil - they form our drive - and are mouldable and can been controlled and directed to enforce the positive aspects of ourselves such as the ability to reason.

I dont know. Whats your view Bearster?

Rand states here that reason is the basic means of survival. Looking at this in the correct evolutionary light this is saying that survival is at the base of reason. i.e. it is the basic axiom of reason. That may seem obvious but is, I believe, worth spelling out. The good is moral. What is moral should be practical. What is Practical should be rational. What is rational promotes your survival. What makes you is your ability to consciously choose. In circumstances where the ability to choose has been all but supressed; it is possible, as a result of due reason, to die/suffer for that abilities resurrection because it equates to you.