turboimpala

Hey Dan I heard your name mentioned this morning on the radio (WSSL FM) about going to court. I live in Campobello and work in Greenville. Good luck!

John Galt did not intervene, he shrugged and created a separate society hidden from the rest of the world. Ayn Rand used the strike as an example to help explain the concepts of the Objectivist philosophy. It wasn't intended to be a practical solution to all the worlds problems. As an Objectivist, have you decided that your central purpose in life is to solve all the world's problems? Why do you think that reality requires that governments restrict the freedoms of businessmen? If there aren't enough people who will benefit from extinguishing forest fires to put enough effort into it to be successful, why do you think it is necessary to extinguish them?

Who owns the forests? Government? It would probably make more sense for individuals to have property rights and to be able to purchase land in forests. Then businesses would start - businesses that grow, modify and sell lumber, fruit, vegetables, rubber, aspirin, etc. Those businesses would not do well if their property burned down to a crisp. : )

Your explanation was outstanding but I wouldn't say it was money itself that everyone was fighting for. I would say it was the FREEDOM or POLITICAL POWER needed for different parties to make money. The South wanted the freedom to produce goods and the freedom to voluntarily trade those goods with each other and with other nations. The North wanted the political power to control trade between states and between nations and to impose tarriffs on trade. The South wanted the power to continue owning and using slaves. Some people in the North wanted the power to continue trading slaves. And there were people on both sides who supported ending slavery. So the way I see it, the reasons for the war were freedom and power. Isn't that why all wars are fought? Productive people want freedom. Looters want power. Moochers want the looters to have power.

Lincoln: - Suspended the writ of habeas corpus - Spent money before Congress appropriated it - Imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial - Signed the Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act - Signed the second and third Morrill Tariffs - Created US Income Tax - Increased US Income Taxes - Signed the National Banking Acts - Approved the creation of the USDA - Signed the first Legal Tender Act - Controlled the press - Signed the Enrollment Act producing first wartime draft in US history - Controlled all cotton trade in the occupied South - Said "If I could save the union without freeing one slave, I would." - Said "I do not hold that the Negro is the equal of the white man." - Said "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Exactly! There are 2 definitions of selfless, just like there are 2 definitions of selfish. There are the original definitions, and there are the current popular culture definitions. Both words have been redefined over the last several decades. As much as we would all like this to not be true, it is a basic fact of reality. And to be an Objectivist, one must accept this fact. Objectivism is based on reality and reason, not just reason.

Nope. Impossible. Think about it.

I've discovered the error in your thinking. You assume that since rationality implies selfishness, that selfishness also implies rationality. But it doesn't work that way. To be rational you must be selfish. But to be selfish, you need not be rational. Everyone is selfish, but not everyone is rational. Selfishness is a characteristic of rationality, but it is not the ONLY characteristic.

Irrational, but still selfish.

If the boy isn't selfish, then what is he?

Depends on your definition of selfish. : )

What do you know, the first thing Mr. Cropper says is that selfishness has 2 definitions.

Obviously the selfless people are irrational. And like I said, these people end up dead within 2 weeks. So what you're saying is that there are only 2 types of people, dead people and live people. The selfless people are dead and the selfish people are alive. Which means there is really only 1 type of person, the selfish person (because the selfless people are dead). Which makes sense, because selfishness is the only way anyone can stay alive. So how do you separate the rationally self-interested people from the "other" selfish people? They can't be described as irrationally selfless, because irrationally selfless people are still selfless and therefore they are dead. And I understand what you mean when you say they're not irrationally selfish, because if they're selfish, they're rational. So obviously the "other" selfish people are also selfish. But what is the appropriate phrase to describe them? Is there a single appropriate phrase? Objectivist selfish people admit they're selfish and are proud of it. The "other" selfish people don't admit it (or don't realize it) (or just don't think about it at all). Which is why the "other" selfish people support immoral laws, because they don't realize that they're immoral.

The definition of selfish is definitely not the same for all people and all dictionaries, as can easily be seen in the definitions referenced in this thread and the discussions in this thread. Objectivist definition = rational self-interest Other definitions = IRrational self-interest Some people in this thread believe that irrational self-interest (living off of the effort of other people, or completely disregarding the well being of others) is the same as being selfless. But we know this can't be true, because true selflessness can't really exist (at least not for long). If you're truly selfless, you will sacrifice yourself for others, you'll spend all your money to help others survive, and you won't allow yourself to eat or drink and within 2 weeks you'll die. So, as far as I'm concerned, there are 3 options: Selflessness Rational Selfishness Irrational Selfishness

I’ve read Atlas Shrugged several times. You must remember that Atlas Shrugged is a fiction novel, it is not reality. Just because the looting characters created by Ayn Rand were not intelligent, doesn’t mean that the looters that exist in reality are also unintelligent. Many evil people are evil because they choose to be evil, not because they are stupid. Assuming otherwise is dangerous! When I look at a politicians face, I see shame, due to lack of pride. He knows his actions are immoral, but he does them anyway. Although he knows that freedom, individual rights, honesty, integrity, justice and productiveness are moral, he has chosen not to be moral, he has chosen to do whatever he can to acquire as much political power as possible so he can control other people.

If the body of laws are created by immoral people, how do we get from where we are now to a moral body of laws? I still think that the people who create immoral laws are not stupid, they are evil. They realize that what they're doing is immoral, but they do it anyway because they are only interested in wealth and power. Am I wrong?

You should fear death! Death is bad! Life is good! That's why Objectivists choose life instead of death! Religious people are taught (and many choose) to sacrifice their quality of life on earth in order to have a better life after they die. When you let go of religion and faith, you don't lose something, you gain something. You gain volition! You choose to embrace life! You choose to embrace reality and reason! You choose to allow yourself to be proud, productive and to be happy! You choose to live for yourself in the here and now instead of living for strangers or for a life after death that doesn't even exist!

A lot of Objectivists have already started using the phrase "rational self-interest". This could be a good discussion though. A lot of Objectivists say one of the biggest problems with the world is that people embrace the concept of selflessness. But I don't think this is actually true. I see people TALKING about being selfless but I don't see any of them actually BEING selfless. Most people already practice rational self-interest. I don't think Objectivists convincing other people that selflessness is immoral will accomplish anything. Politicians talk about selflessness, but they are not actually selfless, they are the most greedy people in the world, but they are looters, they are interested in stealing money and controlling other people. And the people who vote for these politicians are also not selfless, they just want free stuff, they are moochers. If everyone in the world agreed that selflessness was evil and selfishness was moral, would it make a difference? Looters and moochers would still exist. In Atlas Shrugged, the productive members of society took the power and control away from moochers and looters by going on strike. This was an awesome way for Ayn Rand to explain concepts, but I don't think it's is a practical solution for the real world, and I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand didn't intend it to be. The real world contains 6.6 billion people and millions of them are productive. I have to go to work now, I'll write more later.

So if you're an Objectivist and you spend many years searching for a compatible partner that you can value, but don't find one, and finally decide to have sex with someone you're just physically attracted to, you're a pervert? I don't think so man. And something I've never heard discussed with Objectivists are the positive health aspects of sex as well as the role hormones play in interpersonal attraction.

What's the difference?

If all those poor people possesed weapons and were willing, able and legally permitted to defend themselves from crime, I think it would be a very safe place to live and they wouldn't need a police force. I'd be more concerned about crime from the taxpaying area spilling over into this area.

What's the time limit on this thing? When I play the game it just keeps going and going, I can get as high a number as I want.

I have a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering. I've been working in the jet engine / gas turbine industry for about 12 years. I think mechanical engineering is a very general degree. If I could go back in time I would probably get a more specific degree such as materials engineering, welding engineering or even industrial engineering as they would probably be more useful to my career. But if you don't have a specific idea of what industry you will work in it may be difficult to choose a more specific major. If you don't know what you're passionate about I would suggest getting any kind of part time job available in engineering to get an idea of what you would do on a daily basis and to get as much exposure to different industries as possible so that you can find / choose a passion. In regards to small arms, I am thinking about buying one of the new Winchester Model 70's chambered in .243 - they are now manufactured by FN in Columbia, SC.

There was another Ayn Rand quote in last night's episode of Criminal Minds. "We are all brothers under the skin - and I, for one, would be willing to skin humanity to prove it."

Why does match.com need chemical engineers? Seems strange. Just curious.