Marty McFly
-
Posts
245 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Marty McFly
-
-
so this is my question: if it comes to this, if it is no longer rational to give them any time or space in your mind, how is still loving that person explained? It's easy to say that one should not give that person time or space, but when that person is one's own child, how is that love explained in Objectivism? how is a parent's refusal to give up hope for their adult child explained?
-
If the child's whole philosophy is just wrong. If he/she behaves in an entitlement generation or something... If they adopt a philosophy that is disgusting to the parent, and yet the parent cant help loving that child. I understand tough love and everything, but if the child is at rock botton, what does a parent do?
-
When a parent loves his/her child, and this child behaves in ways that are just wrong, how does the parent deal with it?
-
I don't know how it began but ironically it was Alexander Hamilton who first coined the term "capitalism"
-
I am not saying that she copied th ereal people. but alot of her charachters resemble real people Toohey could be Eugene Debs and the Homestead PA strike could be Hank Rearden's steel company (Frick could be Rearden)Carnegie could be wanand, and Mrs. William Astor's gala ball of feb. 1892 could be that party where Fransisco D'Anconia gave the news that his stock fell etc. it's really cool when You read about the industrial era
The easy answer is: "Well, pretty much..." If you read biographies of the industrialists, it is easy to find analogs to Hank Rearden, Andrew Stockton, Midas Mulligan, and the others. It has been suggested that Hank Rearden was modeled on Henry Ford both in looks and personality. However, Nat Taggart did not look like James J. Hill and Hill did not go knocking on farmers' doors to raise capital.
Such speculations run contrary to Ayn Rand's theory of aesthetics. If she wanted to write a biography, she would have done that. The craft of writing fiction requires paying attention to people. After all, this is not computer documentation. The choice of the name Nathaniel Taggart might be easy to derive from her life. Was Eddie Willers Frank O'Connor? Was Cheryl Taggart an acutal shop girl? But, again, Ayn Rand's conscious aesthetic was to create people, not to copy them. From her Romantic Manifesto (which I read) and her journals (which I have not), she did not build her characters as pastiches or collages, but from the ground up. As far as I know, every good writer does this, creating full biographies of the characters, even if most of those details never appear in
the manuscript.
-
Second contradiction or as I see it PARADOX: Even without the slavery problem, one of the premises of America in the XIXc being a Free Country is the concept of the expanding frontier.
Native Americans were human beings, some where inside the incorporated states but were not given equal rights (trail of tears). Some (most) were outside the States and even had some nomadic sort of sovereignty: certainly the concept of it otherwise they wouldn't have signed contracts which as far as I know, was not them who breached.
The native americans were as guilty I think. besides, they had a very strict socialist system where anyone who "lived like the whites" was ceremoniously burned in thier villages. the tribes did not allow individualism the way americans did
-
James J Hill sounds like a great man. he Built a transcontinental railroad without any governmental help (in an era where government did help some railroad companies and there were lots of curroption in the construction companies) was Ayn Rand portraying the times of James Hill and Jay Gould etc?
-
We have no example in History about a State that suceeds in preventing itself to expand.
Or, to say it in other words, we have no example of people succedding in keeping their government in check for long periods of time.
Even the United States, the closest a government has been to the ideal of a free capitalist country during the XIX century, has slowly fallen into a condition of a semifree, mixed economy ( and I am not thinking necessarily in Obama's America, but just in the long distance that separates end-of-century America from the ideal of the Founding Fathers)...
Then the question raises: is a minimum, proper State an utopy? Are the anarchists right, at least in their idea that, even if a minimal State were moral in theory, it can never happen in reality?
Or is it that I am missing the point and rather than States forcing their way to expansion, it is the citizens demanding and furthering that expansion, out of a prevalent wrong philosophy?
But then, at the time of Independence, were the Found Fathers relatively alone in their thinking, whereas the mass of common Americans had other country in mind? If we succeed in bringing a critical number of intellectuals to Objectivism, will they be able to build a free country that lasts long? Or are these efforts doomed to fail because the monopoly of coercion towards criminals ends up creating new laws to translate that coertion (sooner or later) to non-criminals?
The reason we are not as free as we should be is because when the founding fathers started this new nation, based on such noble ideas, they used the help of tyrants to get to their goal. Slave holders were tyrants, same as kings were. If slavery would have been abolished at the start, there would have been no contradictions in this new nation's philosophy and the US would have never become any less free. If the declaration of independence would have been taken by its word throughout the US as it did in Massachusetts for example, where "Mum Bet" sued her master for her freedom based on the state constitution, there would be no reason for anyone to feel the need for bigger government.
-
how come no one mentioned "hair"?
Hair the "Hero" of this movie is a stupid coward and as loser
-
In the Passion of Ayn Rand, it is written that Rand's sister, upon making it to America, reacted exactly the same way. I seem to remember that toothpaste, in particular, was mentioned. According to the book, Rand didn't get along with her and was very disappointed.
(I say "according to the book" because I know that Barbara Branden is persona non grata around here, and therefore anything said in her biography is "of questionable truth". Personally I don't think there's any reason to doubt most of the book's contents, certainly not the parts that have nothing to do with "the breakup".)
personally, about her sister, I wouldn't put it past the soviets to have taken her sister, told her that she could go to America only if she will distroy her famous sister's raputation by coosing to return to Russia. I wouldn't be surprised if they threataned her and the family she left behind in Russia. (I know it sounds conspiratory, but conspiracies are more likely in some countries than others)
-
YOu know the story with The Line is less horrible in a way (as horrible as it is) we the living spoiler
Kira not only tried harder, there was no drama about her death. no one knew, no one cared she was shot because some guard thought it was a fox. there is no worse way to describe a death. even "the wet nurse"'s death was more kind (AS)
]
-
Here's a blog post about buying cars in Cuba.
I don't think many people have a doubt that people were generally poorer under communism. I suspect that the old man described in the first post could probably have been boxed in to admitting as much. Rather, I think there is a certain sense in which some people miss that poverty. They pine for "simpler times".
I've seen this in people who come to the U.S. and then complain about things like "there's too much choice". I asked one such person for an example and was told: "You go to the store and there are 20 different types of toothpaste!" or "You order a banana-split and they give you so many options" or "You ask for salad and they list five different dressings".
For godness sake! is it that hard to make a friggin choice? *shakes head in exasperation* some people... They can always do eeny meeny miney mo. We did that alot as kids. I for one would go crazy if there were limited choices. (I live in the US and I stil think there arent enough choices
) -
none of this would have even been an issue if that real estate would have had ONE owner
-
I really appreciate all the replies. I laughed at some of them, and I strongly agree that he must be one of those moochers to like a sociaty like that. that last one about The Line was sad and it did remind me of the way it ended for poor Kira. except Kira tried a little harder. This woman seemed to almost invite death by openly running out. Poor souls, the strong, able, lovers of life who had to be imprisoned by sniveling Orcs. *sigh*
If I ever see that guy again I think I will ask him (nicely, without arrogance) why he didn't move to Cuba yet. I hope he Does move there so there'd be one less commie voter in NY. (he told me he is a citizen >
)Edit: ^ that picture by the way, ROCKS! can I see it in full size?
-
So I go to my doctor who happens to be russian. I sit there in the waiting room which is full of Russian speaking patients (A russian Doc would attract similar language speaking patients) I'm sittin next to this russian guy and he tries to explain to me how much better Russia was under communism. he actually takes out a pen and paper and shows me "I made 200 a month, rent was 20 a month, bread was .75 etc vacation was a full month rather than two weeks etc. I was incredulous, I mean, like, what on earth did he do with all the rest of his money? its not like he would be allowed to buy a bigger house or start a business with all that extra cash... what do you think?
i
-
And another thing...this recession won't last forever, and Obama will get credit for pulling us out of it.
If Obama does all he said he would, this recession will become a depression
-
WHY the hell would any Objectivist be for Obama?? How about not voting at all? that sounds better.
-
I don't believe there is actually a "psychological altruism" any kind of altruism is done in order to get benifit from at a later time or in the long run. the only other kind of "altruism" that your professor might cal psychological is not really even altruism at all. for example the daughter that feeds her retarded mother might be doing it simply because she loves her. Love not something altruistic. the daughter values her mother for whatever reason (its her own business as to why) and therefore she provides her with food. nothing altruistic; theres no such thing as "psychological altruism", only biological.
-
am I wrong, or is it true that until 1914 there was no income tax at all? and until 1920's there has never been any kind of economic depression? could there be a connection there? pure capitalism existed in the US of A until the 1914 amendment.
-
America's salvation might well be the fact that the European politicians are even worse than our own.
Thats not enough of a salvation. and believe it or not, there are plenty of employers giving "letter money" here too. there will be as long as they keep taxing businesses no matter how little. if it costs money to have a business, there will be "black money". it'll stop when income taxes are abolished.
-
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle4844255.ece
And I thought Bush was a Republican. He has proved himself to be a bigger idiot every day that he's president! What bothers me is that McCain is not bashing him for it. He's just as much as a socialist? what the Hell happened to the Republican party?!
-
^ good one!
-
LMAO this reminds me of a book I read by Donald E Westlake called Humans. Story's about a scienece experiment that'll distroy planet earth
pretty freaky for me as I just read this book and now everyone's talking about that black hole. lol
It was a comedic book about God getting bored with the universe and sending an angel (Ananayel) to get people together to destroy the earth and the devil is woking aainst him to save the earth. hillarious! but weird that now we have these scientists experimenting with the black hole
you think these scientists read "Humans"?
-
is this a new map? not too many Oists around my tri states
edit: wow and there are only 2 people in my city, that sucks. and I'm not even a real Oist, just a big fan of Ayn Rand and Capitalism so there's only one in my city when you think about it this way...
How is love explained?
in Ethics
Posted
These are interesting thoughts. Now what if that son or daughter who is acting irrationally and who's philosophy greatly contrasts that of the parent does something stupid that puts his/her life in danger, and the parent sacrifices his/her life to save that child.
Would that parent be considered irrational?
Is love rational