Miles White

"A friend is one soul in two bodies" -Aristotle

Maintaining a centralized enough government to enforce an objective code of laws that protects you from the initiation of force, does.

Surely you must be joking.

I contemplated the same thing a long time ago, until I realized that just about 99% of every Libertarian actually holds an unusual burning hatred for Objectivism and Rand. They are quick to smother Objectivists with titles such as "intolerant", "war-mongers", and "Dogmatists". All you have to do is read their comments to find that out. http://www.reason.com/blog/show/108260.html http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113996.html Trying to convince a Libertarian to become an Objectivist is like trying to convince radical Islam that Jewish people are nice after all. P.S. The only Libertarians that do claim to be sympathetic of Objectivism, are affiliates of The Atlas Society. Enough said.

A fetus is still attached to the mothers body i.e. property, newborns are not. First of all, stop referring to objectivism as if it were a religion, it's not. All though based on your position, I would have no doubt as to wether you did hold mystical or religious sympathies but thats for another argument. Second of all, yes there are people who personally oppose abortion on secular grounds, but these people are still pro-choice because they do not support using government force to impose their morality upon others. Thirdly, define for me exactly how "in-vitro fertilization and things like contraception" will be effected in a negative way by allowing women the freedom over their own body. So you admit that it must be a creation of GOD, right? The example that you use is only further proof of how destructive being pro-life is. A secular government would never arrest women for simply making an important decision over her own body. Ok, I admit. That one was pretty funny. There is nothing "intelligent" about trying to reason with mystics, or rather trying to reason with those who reject reason. One of my bigest pet peives are people who proclaim to be superior in their wisdom than others by being "Open Minded". Open mindedness is nothing more than an excuse used by skeptics to justify their refusal of knowledge and reality. They repudiate what they know to be real out of fear, and in a desperate attempt to reaffirm their petty state of denial, they accept everyone else's different stories to ignore reality as if all it takes is to believe in the largest quantity of fairy tales in order to alter what you know to be real in favor of what you want it to be. We should be using reality as a starting point for all acquired knowledge, not being tolerant of those whom you know to be wrong based upon what reality has told you.

Unfortunately, I have my doubts as to wether that same premise applies to this current election.

It's funny isn't it that the two-party system within this country has become so similar to each other, that now it looks as if we have to vote for a third party in order to preserve two-party politics.

Most underrated movie of all time: The big lebowski. You can't beat the scene in the end where Walter bites the ear off of the nihilist. The writting is so simplistic it's ingenius, the way they make the characters repeat eachothers sentence (mostly containing the F word) is mind boggling how anyone could sit down and actually write a script like that. Not to mention the contrast between the welfare bum 'The Dude' and the vietnam veteren Walter playing off of eachother so well. Casting is perfect, acting is perfect, writting is perfect, wasn't a moment in that entire movie when I didn't have tears in my eyes from all the laughter.

would say when it comes to movie soundtracks, Last of the Mohicans and the Lord of the rings trilogy would have to rank way up there.

What gives competing governments the "right" to do the same? Before you denounce the establishment of a government, you must take into consideration exactly what a government is. Have you ever wondered why our founding fathers implemented a separation of church and state claus into the constitution? A government is the physical manifestation of force, ergo to separate church and state is to separate church with force. To separate state and economics is to separate force with economics. To guarantee that this concentration of force doesn't get out of control, we delegate specific rights to it via the constitution so that the monopoly of force will only be able to use it in retaliation against the aggressors of force. To oppose this dichotomy of force with certain aspects of society is to support allowing all individuals and private institutions to maintain their privilege of initiating force completely at their own discretion. Would you want to live in a society whereby any business who can afford a private military would have the complete freedom to use it to destroy it's superior competitor? Or a society were any religion that had the guns can and will force others to convert? The only way we can establish a fully free society is to extract from the individual the ability to initiate force through establishing a government.

I really like Leonard Peikoffs suit in this video. Very nice contrast between the gold tie and the salmon suit.

I believe that this should be of interest to you.

As I said in another topic a while ago, I'm proud to be a born and raised Atheist. I have never been affiliated with any church or cult like religious organization in anyway shape or form.

Might I recommend two great albums by The Beach Boys? Pet Sounds Holland Especially the tunes "Sail on Sailor" and "Trader" on the album Holland are some of my favorite songs of all time let alone the genre.

I do not know if this has already been discussed before or not, but couldn't the government charge a user fee to private police, court, and PMCs in order for them to have a license to practice such professions? Since the government must maintain a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force then it would be perfectly just for the government to ensure that those specific private services hold a license in order to conduct business properly within that field of law enforcement/arbitration. There are many other user fee alternatives to taxation as well that a government as small as an Objectivist should have no problem generating voluntary revenue from, but nonetheless the specific methods are really a very narrowly practical matter thats rather unimportant to discuss because there are many, but the bottom line is that a government should be financed through voluntary means, the methods of implementation are relative.

The music I listen to is typically composed of Jazz, Blues, and Americana, especially if it's got soul. I'm a sucker for anything thats got soul in it.

You mean like this?

Here are some countries that don't levy an income tax, and here are some countries that levy a flat income tax. If we are to find a place to escape from the wrath of communism, then I would say those countries would be our safest bet.

Like toilet paper that should be recycled in order to preserve the "environment".

If you find a natural part of the human body disgusting and vulgar then that is your fault for being a Nihilist not mine. I for one don't take shame in being honest and strait to the point, hence the term "penis". What type of pure philosophy are you talking about? I've never herd of anything about intellectual property rights devolving into totalitarianism under Objectivist philosophy. Another thing to keep in mind here, is the fact that the ends don't justify the means. Just because it's a little difficult for the government to punish people who steal property over the internet shouldn't give the government the right to legalize theft, otherwise you could justify taxation under that argument as well.

Butters? The comic relief who in one episode was told by Cartman to go into the bathroom and pull on his pennis until seamen came out is suppose to be a representative of a Randian hero? I think not. That has to be the most far fetched assumption I've ever herd with relating Rands works to popular culture. How anybody can relate the beautiful relationship of Dominique Francon and Howard Roark to a rapist and a chicken is unfathomable. I'm honestly speechless as to how anybody could write such a thing with a strait face. If you were completely sold on her philosophy, then you should understand how disastrous Ron Pauls disgustingly pacifistic foreign policy actually is. It's a shame that we finally get a presidential candidate influenced by the Austrian School and he turns out to have one of the most destructive foreign policies of all others. They also did an episode criticizing intellectual property rights, and stating that atheism isn't the answer because "no single solution towards metaphysical problems is the right solution." Which is not very Objectivist at all. If it does, it will only be promoting Objectivism with the wrong message, which can be more destructive then not promoting the philosophy at all.

Podcast number 12 is up: 1. How would an Obectivist look at a job slightly less fulfilling but with better monetary rewards. 2. How does someone know the statistics of wether white men like asian women more than other women. 3. What is the ethical correctness of concierge medicine.

Or rather "Way to investigate those Metaphyso Absos. No con-tros yo. We don't need no mystisizzles."

Or rather, "Better to see the reds dead."

If I were you, I would start charging 4 dollars and hour to the members of your family for every time they use your service. If they refuse to pay, then don't fix it. That should put things into perspective for them.