simonsays

Video making fun of Objectivists: http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/in...?ml_video=81842 LOL!

Study comparing children in developed countries: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/6360477.stm The UK is bottom of the table and the US is 2nd to bottom. I am extremely sceptical that Poland or Hungary or the Czech Republic are higher on this list, but I am not sure how to criticise the report. What do you guys think?

Hey, I'm doing another Skypecast right now: https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/sky...?id_talk=412394 I still haven't had any takeup on this idea which I am quite surprised about. I would have thought that Objectivists would be eager to speak with eachother!

Thanks everyone for the excellent comments. Much appreciated. I have a lot of thinking to do.

I was listening to Yaron Brook yesterday talk about how it is justified to bomb civilians sometimes, and initially I was sceptical about this view. However, I have just spent an hour in a Skypecast hosted by this American liberal guy who was telling everyone how evil America is. There was also this Egyptian guy blaming America for all the worlds evils. After this talk, I now think that most civilians are NOT innocent in an aggressor country. Kind of like the people dying on the train in Atlas Shrugged.

Wikipedia on ARI: Here is a link to the Charity Navigator page on ARI. Would this stop anyone donating to ARI? Does ARI need to improve and if so how can it improve? Any criticism of Yaron Brook earning $244,981 when ARI is in the 10% least efficient charities? (Note: I am not raising criticism of the ARI or Yaron Brook on their job as educators, but on their job as administrators.) (Edited to add a link to Wikipedia article.)

Hey peoples, Recently I have identified many areas of my life in which I am acting against my own values. My question is should I wipe my slate clean immediately and completely by putting everything right all in one go. Or, as long as I am heading in the right direction and eliminating areas of irrationality step by step, then this is good enough. The immediate answer in my mind is that if I am harming myself that it makes sense to stop doing so immediately. However is there not some merit to taking a careful approach, eliminating irrationality gradually and over time? You see, I don’t want my experience with Objectivism to be like some sort of religious experience where I get “born again” and become a completely different person overnight. Rather it would be great that if in five years time I can wake up having a completely non-contradictory sense of joy, after 5 years of effort in getting my actions aligned with my values. But then, is this approach a cop out, an excuse to carry on acting irrationally in certain areas? You see, it is possible that the rational part of my brain sees certain areas of my life as immoral, yet the irrational part sees major benefits arising from this irrationality, benefits that would be a lot harder to achieve by acting rationally. If this is true then a gradual step by step approach to weeding out irrationality is really just an excuse to carry on acting irrationally for a little while longer. I know I haven't provided any specific contexts from which to accurately judge the situation, but let me make up an example. If a student of Objectivism has spent the last 5 years bumming around and lying to people before he discovered Objectivism, and he realises he needs a better job more aligned with his values, would it make sense to lie on his resume (to hide his 5 years of bumming and instead make up something productive that he did in the last 5 years)? On the one hand he could reason that lying is wrong and in this instance it is fraud. On the other hand he could argue that he is already a liar and that one more lie in order to better himself is worth it because at least he is heading in the right direction and over time will become fully integrated. This example is very similar to my actual problem so I think it would be a good place to start when answering my question. Thanks for any advice.

OK, I've created another one that will last for 5 hours - "Objectivism and Ayn Rand". I'm new at this, so I don't know if there is an option to have a permenant one. My name on Skype is prometheus9993. Click on the link in the previous post and search for this new Skypecast. I hope there is some interest in this as I am looking forward to talking with some rational people! Ah, no need to search just click on this link: https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/sky...?id_talk=399838 For anyone who doesn't know what Skype is, its a program to make free calls over the internet. A skypecast is basically a giant conference call, or a chat room in which you actually speak.

Hey everyone, I've just created a Skypecast called Objectivism. https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/home You can join in the next 15 mins and talk with me and other Ayn Rand fans around the world. This would be a great idea to develop on this website.

Just to spoil the party a bit, but for those people who are thinking about voting republican in the next election, then you guys need to reexamine your understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life. Socialism is dead, religion is more of a threat.

Who does "exude filth"? No one I know.

I think your theory stinks! Literally. Seriously, though, why would you want to not shower every day? I think that's disgusting. I'm assuming you don't have a girl friend or socialise very often! Also, the people carrying around disinfectant have probably always been sick as a result of their genetics and started carrying it around as a result. So their disinfectant is a symptom but not a cause of their illness. Similarly, your genetics have resulted in you not getting sick, and your "symptom" is your belief in not washing. Not washing has not caused you not to get sick. So basically I am saying that because an action is correlated with an effect, does not mean that it has caused this effect.

Is not the 4th category the most intelligent and also the category with the most honesty? For these reasons perhaps they are the least evil?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6343311.stm

For the purposes of this thread I think over $1m in net worth is a good figure to define a successful businessman. Obviously those with less than $1m are still successful but I think what the original poster wanted to know was whether you could reach the top echelons of business by following Objectivist philosophy.

I have an idea. It would be a HUGE risk but I don't see what options you have left. Talk to your day trader millionaire neighbour or another rich neighbour. Explain to him your exact problems, just as you have done here. It might be better to send him a letter. Explain to him in detail about your tax problems and your environmental problems. Explain to him that with this knowledge he could have you thrown in jail for environmental regulation violation. Hand yourself over to his mercy and let him know that you have handed yourself over to him. Tell him that you would completely understand if he had you thrown in jail, that you have dragged down the property prices in the area and risked everyones health. You are totally ashamed of yourself for this and that you are sorry from deep within your soul. Ask him for his advice, since he is more well versed in financial matters than you, if he thought there was any possible way that you could leave CT and move to a cheaper state while preserving your self respect in old age by not being sent to jail. There would be 2 possible outcomes to this gambit. a] you get your ass hauled to jail. b] your neighbour helps you either financially, or with some great advice on how to solve your problem, or both. Your neighbour is rich, intelligent, and successful. He might have access to a vast network of people and resources that could solve your problems. Honestly appeal to his sense of benevolence and compassion and you might find a way forward. Just my thoughts. Good luck.

"If an evil country seeks to conquer and plunder a free, capitalist one, who -- in the free country -- would contribute to a defence?" Yes, this is a better way to phrase my question. Hypothetical example: market communist China vs. a free capitalist America.

How would major wars that require the whole nation to be mobilised be a] funded and b] orchestrated, under a perfectly free society?

As far as I know deflation is bad. If you want to purchase a good, then under deflation it makes sense to wait a little bit longer until the price of it has dropped. While you are waiting for the price to drop you can put your money into a savings account and earn very good real returns under deflation. When everyone does this (waits for goods prices to drop and puts their money into savings), the price drops even further due to dampened demand. Now it makes even more sense to wait for further price decreases before purchasing. ===> Spiral effect ensues causing a recession. I think the system we have now (independent central banks) is a pretty good system. GreedyCapitalist mentioned having competing currencies, and I think this is a great idea in order to protect yourself in case the Fed messes up, however I don't think any of these competing currencies would be fixed against gold. Rather I think they would operate in exactly the same way as the Fed, but make better (or worse) interest rate decisions than the Fed.

Central banks around the world are extremely transparent in their activities as shown on the websites below. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/c...ks/ccbshb10.htm http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/ragan_paper/economy.html Private banks are not as transparent, but as you said, it is difficult to prove that either central banks or private banks are not trying to control America. If they are, then as KendallJ has said, there should be proof before we believe it.

Because world bankers don't control America.

Why would you believe that documentary?

Can someone please argue against the statement "It doesnt harm anyone by downloading this, I wasn't going to buy it anyway." In my head that statement makes sense and I am not sure about the arguments against it.

Well I definitely think that the Ayn Rand Bookstore is a complete joke, and is not thinking through its business decisions properly. Selling a half hour VHS tape (like we are in the 1980s or something) for $23, wtf. If I owned the Ayn Rand Bookstore, I would upload all of the CDs, DVDs, audio tapes and VHS tapes onto a subscription only website and charge between $50 - $1000 a year (I would base the final figure on market research but would guess at this being around $199) for access to all material. If marketed and priced properly I think they could make far more profit than I speculate they are making now. Imagine the residual income from the renewed subscriptions every year! Anyway, until they wake up, lets all dust off our VHS players and enjoy the interview for $23. What a joke.

DavidOdden, How would you respond to me if i said that illegal downloading of mp3 music is what forced record companies to supply their music via download? That in the long run, the record companies will make more profit by providing their consumers with lower prices and easier ways to access their music, and that these higher long term profits were caused initially by illegal downloading.