Vetiver

In this instance I feel there's good reason to ask why this particular behavior is so similar to religious mysticism. You didn't even address the question at hand, which is why people choose to make corrections to two words out of thousands that are incorrectly capitalized (and I hardly imagine that capitalization is the only grammatical problem on this board). My contribution is inquiry into the behavior of self-proclaimed Objectivists. This was not a casual Marxist posting "LOLZ YOUR ONE BIG CULT OF GREEDY BASTARDS". Not unless inquiries into action mean asking why you exist. I think people here are a great source of information, argumentation and humor. That doesn't mean any criticism needs to be cast off as "Objectivists must die" or some sinful act.

I thought I recall reading this in one of Rand's essays (I thought it was in The Virtue of Selfishness)? Doesn't she suggest a compromised between a) it's the property of its creator and b ) exclusive copyrights can inhibit further development/innovation in that field, where the compromise is a set arbitrary number of years that typically lasts the length of the author's life? (p.s. I accidentally voted 5 instead of 25 years).

I'm interested in a response that explains why people focus exclusively on Ayn Rand and Objectivism, as opposed to the thousands of other grammatical mistakes. Further, not capitalizing Ayn Rand or Objectivism is taken as a sign of treason: This is from another thread I was reading just one minute after posting this thread. "'O' must be capitalized" is the first warrant to "your views are wrong". Refusing to capitalize is proof that the rest of your views are clearly not Objectivist.. like some condescending bible school teacher whose interest is not the preservation of grammar but the preservation of God's holiness as a divine figure.

Why is there a police force here that strictly enforces objectivism and ayn rand as Objectivism and Ayn Rand? Reminds me of "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

How was it attributed to his OCD? I saw the film as a struggle between Hughes' brilliant will (to make epic films, fly airplanes faster, higher and greater than any previous, and enjoy the monetary rewards of his success) and his irrational OCD. The climax was when he overcame a terrible bout (when he's naked in the redroom eating only chocolate chip cookies with medium chips and warm milk), cleaned up and showed up to the hearing to call out the senator's bullshit. This part made me laugh with joy. That the very end was him relapsing doesn't make the film a terrible, hopeless movie.

It's silly moralizing consumption of alcohol, especially specifying "moral" and "immoral" amounts of alcohol... "Hey Frank, want another beer?" "Nah, I'll pass my moral threshold." Even worse is suggesting alternatives like "breathing exercises" that just do different things like deprive your brain of oxygen and cause euphoria that you wouldn't otherwise experience under normal conditions. Indeed, it's a sad state when somebody drinks to escape all their problems in life, and their enjoyment in a given situation is contingent on consuming alcohol (characteristic of alcoholics, other addicts). But this is true of everything and anything... people who play chess all day to forget about overdue bills, people who work all day to forget about their children they're neglecting, etc. The immorality people discuss isn't in the consumption of alcohol but the denial of reality where alcohol is their vehicle of escape. Risk is implicit in everything we do (driving 60mph), drinking is no different. As mentioned before, drinking can have value in altering your consideration of a certain concept / object [not distorting reality] and make you jolly while you spend time with friends. It may also taste good. These are personal preferences. I don't personally drink, but I hardly condemn anyone who does to supplement an enjoyable life. I'm drinking coffee right now... won't apologize for that.

But in the case of selling stock the presumption is that the duped thinks he's getting an existent company's stock because you're telling him it exists. In this instance, it's like some guy approaching you and saying "Hey, can I buy your 3000 shares of Purple Buffalo?" and trying to convince you that those shares and that company exist. This situation is even worse because this person thought they were outwitting you and really stood to gain from buying your soul and controlling it. Their statement is "I'm offering this exchange because consent to own your soul is more valuable than you know". I think accepting the offer is the ultimate expression of "no, you're wrong" and gives them what they deserve. Makes sense.

I'm sure this has already been addressed within these twelve pages, but how is love defined?

This satisfies my question best. Thanks for your response, as well as everyone else who replied.

Thank you for the reference. I don't dispute the savagery of American Indians or mourn Europeans colonizing and civilizing America. I just wonder what the threshold is for entitlement to land. If my neighbors are irrational, worshiping rain gods and smoking opium all day, can I claim their three-acre forest as my own? Perhaps this is specifically answered in the book, but I wonder if I can't find the answer without spending $25.

What can be said about the European settlers' right to New American land versus pre-existing Native American culture? What is the pre-requisite to establishing ownership of property -- hunting / subsisting on the land, sticking a flagpole in it, or writing up a deed? If Native Americans opposed colonialist expansion into a given tract of land they considered theirs, should European settlers be considered immoral in invading and claiming that land? Admittedly I don't know much about this history period, and this question came up as I flipped through channels and saw Dances with Wolves... but I'd still like to know others' views on this.

What rights are retarded adults "afforded"?

Are there any published thoughts (from ARI or elsewhere) regarding Derrida's work on "deconstruction"? What are its main problems? Sorry if this is the wrong sub-forum... move it elsewhere if necessary.

I ride the publicly funded city bus system in Los Angeles, but it's not immoral on my part. Metro's government funding and basic monopoly on routes / bus stops prevents private competitors that I would otherwise happily ride. I probably pay less than I would if riding a private bus system (thanks to California tax payers), but I have to put up with rabble-rousers who smell like urine and refuse to pay fare. Boycotting Metro would do nothing because they don't rely on my business to survive.