Solid_Choke

I recently came across a book called The Driver by Garet Garrett written in 1922. I was just wondering if Ayn Rand had read it or if anyone else has noticed any of the similarities. In the story a speculator named Henry Galt buys a failing railroad and turns in into the best run railroad in the country. Meanwhile his competitors conspire with the government and they try use the Sherman Antitrust Act to break up and take away his company because he is "exploiting the poor". Has anyone read it? I haven't finished it yet but the similarities with Atlas Shrugged are many. Any thoughts?

I actually just watched the movie today and I have to say it was amazing (keep in mind I am a Classical Liberal and not an Objectivist). I have to wonder if many of you have seen ANY movies from this time period. The acting seemed very on par keeping the era in mind. It is not the style we are used to today but it was spectacular for when it came from.

There is no such thing as overproduction. If too many shoes were made to sell at $80 a pair the price will be reduced until they will sell, say $50 a pair. Sometimes this results in a loss which is good because it punishes entrepreneurs for making mistakes. The price system is a built in feature of the free market that makes overproduction very costly to businesses but also rewards businesses that produce the exact right amount. If you really want to find cases of overproduction and underconsumption you will have to look in command economics such as the USSR. Many times they didn't have enough undershirts for everyone who wanted one(forcing some to buy them on the black market) and also made too many pieces of farm equipment that they could never get rid of and just left to rust. Meanwhile entire factories and hundreds of workers would continue building this equipment even though it would cost less to just have them sit around and watch TV all day because at least it would use less valuable resources.

Not saying that this proves that God doesn't exist but every spring competing in Submission Grappling would become much much harder for me because of my allergies. I would run out of endurance very quickly and if a choke was applied I would have to submit almost instantly because I simply could not breath very well. The past two years I have not had these problems at all. I haven't even gotten sick with the cold or flu either. It seems my allergies that prevented me from competing effectively certain times in the year are now completely gone. I am very ignorant of biology and don't know if allergies are just supposed to come and go at certain times in your life but in my case they did. Just a thought.

I am torn between rewriting the Second Amendment to make it almost impossible to misinterpret(such as spelling out that the right to self-defense is a corollary to the right to life) and totally repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

It seems to me the main problems with Ron Paul are as follows: 1.) He is "anti-war". 2.) He is "anti-abortion". 3.) He is against amnesty for illegals. 4.) He is unprincipled. I can't say much about his anti-war stance other than the fact that no war is better than these international police actions that are going on right now. I would argue that in the long run half-assed wars against totalitarian Islam are worse than no wars because they bring more Muslims to the cause without destroying the problem outright. About him being anti-abortion...well he has stated repeatedly that he would not try to over-turn Roe vs. Wade but would leave this decision up to the states. For me this is not a deal breaker because my economic freedom is more important to me than having ALL states have legal abortion(it is not that hard to travel to another state for such a procedure). Not having amnesty for illegals is all fine and dandy as long as immigration is reformed sufficiently. I can't say much about his principles other than that they are more well defined than any of his democratic opponents and preferable to ALL of his Republican opponents when his economic positions are taken into account. I can understand that he is not John Galt but I still disagree that he is worse than ANY of the alternatives such as Hillary or Juliani.

I wasn't aware of that thread until you brought it up. I'll read it before commenting again. Thanks.

Exactly my thoughts. I don't understand why people don't like Ron Paul because he has one or two statist views but will vote for Hillary who has ONLY statist views.

Wow those are some amazing photos. Good luck with job hunting.

I think socialism is a much greater threat to the U.S. because the "average" American wants things like government intervention in the economy and socialized medicine, but the "average" American does not want a theocracy.

That may be, but his anti-statist views more than make up for his few short-comings IMO. I am actually pretty shocked that more Objectivists don't give him a chance. After all he is the most capitalist candidate out of anyone in either major party.

Personally I think "purchasing" land in Africa and putting in place a "night watchman" state would be a much more likely scenario to promote capitalism in Africa than convincing a tribal leader to give up his absolute power.

Political correctness is a contradiction in much the same way that moral relativism is. It says that you should condemn all actions that condemn an action. But in doing so you are violating the very same principle you are trying to uphold. Basically they are both bullshit(in the philosophical sense) theories. In short it is hypocritical to condemn people for condemning others.

I am curious as to why there has been almost no mention of Ron Paul? He seems to be the only anti-statist candidate running for either major party. Is it simply because you think he has no chance at getting the nomination? I find it somewhat odd that many Objectivists would consider voting for Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton before Ron Paul considering he is the only one in ANY of the debates to actually praise capitalism as an economic system or suggest that the government should be greatly reduced in size.

I didn't see who wrote that particular entry but it was enough for me to view the rest of the book very skeptically. I am by no means an expert in Philosophy or Ayn Rand but I am 100% sure I could write a more accurate entry than that.

Today at the library I found this somewhat comical entry about Ayn Rand in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: Ayn Rand - Russian novelist whose extreme and simplistic views give her a following on the political right. Her philosophy of "objectivism" is in fact simple egoism, a doctrine widely thought untenable. Politically she could see nothing wrong with unfetted capitalism. I have always been a individualist/libertarian but have during the last year been studying Objectivism due to the underdeveloped ethics(IMO) of libertarianism. What this passage got me thinking about is why the philosophical mainstream so quickly dismisses Ayn Rand and sometimes even go as far as to call her a lay-philosopher. I can think of many reasons off the top of my head, but what is the primary reason? Thanks in advance.

As far as I know evolution has never been directly "observed" so it cannot be a law, but it is a theory because we have lots of evidence confirming the original hypothesis. In other words you can't watch evolution happening but you can see the evidence it leaves behind. Perhaps someday it will be possible to truly observe evolution taking place. On a semi-related note: If we did indeed create life from chemical compounds using building blocks other then cells would cell theory cease to be true? Does that even make any sense?

How easy are these to buy in mainland China? Would the government mind if I passed out a couple while I am visiting? Is there some kind of ban on these type of books? Thanks in advance.

Anyone who doesn't think video games can be art has never played Deus Ex or Metal Gear Solid before. End of Story.

It is funny that you have started this thread. Just last night me and one of my best friends swore off Digg for good. Digg magnifies everything that is wrong with direct democracy. It isn't that big of a loss though. The last couple months have just been redundant articles about Bush being evil, PS3 sucking, republicans causing global warming on purpose in order to kill atheists. The same old same old. Basically the site got taken over by a bunch of conspiracy theory lunatics and immature software pirates.

I really hope to see this before I expire.

Most of the programs I have seen either cast doubt about the motivations of the early church leaders or otherwise show the church in an unfavorable light. I guess you must have just tuned in at the wrong time.

Yeah this makes absolutely no sense. Then again this IS the NY Times.

Does this mean that if a child is old enough and could survive if taken out of the womb it is no longer a potential human but a fully human being?

Yes I am planning on having an Ayn Rand fiction marathon after this semester is finished. My local library has all her fiction books so I am pretty much set.