[Why are Environmentalists and PETA so influential?]

This is not to convince them of your fundamentals. It's to preserve or improve the current state of the society. I hate to say it, but I think it's best to not mention principles or fundamentals to the main public these days when trying to convince them on a particular issue. That will only turn them off of what you're saying, since most people just won't change their fundamentals in a short timeframe. I say stick to the facts and aim for a sensitive and strong feeling of theirs.

I can't say I really see the point of this if you're not going to speak of fundamentals. I mean, you're suggesting that we go for peoples' feelings to convey a philosophy that is based around using your mind. What makes the environmentalists so good at what they do is the fact that they have convinced people that their fundamentals are correct. Saving the environment is moral, untouched land is better than industrialized land, nature has intrinsic value, etc. What you're suggesting is some sort of libertarian type strategy which will never work. You can't change the philosophy of a group of people without talking about the philosophy.

[Speculators / Rising prices]

Keynes was supposed to be very bright too; and Kant predicted the existence of Uranus before it was acually discovered. Basically, heavy brain power can still lead to the wrong conclusions. It happens with stunning frequency in all sorts of disciplines. My favorite example is Buffet vs. the Nobel prize winners who ran Long-Term Capital. While Buffett is probably very intelligent, the Nobel Prize guys can probably beat his pants off when it comes to advanced Math. Yet, his reality-focus makes him a billionaire while they end up bankrupt. Then, to change the example a bit, consider Buffett's incorrect view on ethics.

Exactly. Look at Soros too. A brilliant investor who made a billion dollars selling the british pound short, yet believes the government needs to "correct for the excesses of self-interest." I would be very surprised if Soros wasn't purposely implying support of commodities regulation during his testimony to congress.

[Oliver Stone doing The Fountainhead?]

Gordon Gecko was supposed to be the greedy villain in Wall Street. He talks about the importance of greed in public only. Privately he believes business men don't create wealth, but just transfer money.

[Whats so great about gold?]

We had a period of that in the early 1800s here in the US. Problem was so many banks issued so much currency it was hard for anyone to keep track and determine whether a note from East Warthog, Ohio was actually a genuine note; and if it was, was the issuing bank solvent--when you might be a resident of North Seersucker, Georgia, far away from any means of finding out.

That's why transactions of that sort required the use of gold. The party making the payment would redeem his gold from the bank and pay with the gold.

Clearly it would have to be private parties *minting precious metal*; for which there are some fairly simple tests that don't require a huge database of knowlege, rather than printing paper!

Why can't we use gold and paper money?

[Oh That Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Kevin, I still think you should have addressed the fallacy of composition. The point you were trying to make was that not everything has to be created. While it is necessary to assume a creator for a building or a computer, assuming a creator for existence as a whole is misidentifying a property of a part (the building) to true for the whole (existence/the universe).

Right. I think now this would have been the right argument to make. A building must have had a creator only because you know it couldn't have existed without one. The universe is not subject to the same idea.

[Oh That Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Except theists don't believe deity is bound by the laws of science or thermodynamics.

Which brings you to the hardest question of all. How does one argue with people who don't accept reason?

[Oh That Flying Spaghetti Monster]

How then is is "self-evident," then? It is self-evident in this way: When I look at a building, I may have no idea who the builder/architect was, but it is quite apparent that there must have been one. Buildings don't design and build themselves. I cannot "prove" to you the existence of the builder in a way that you can empirically perceive the builder, but that is not necessary for you to have knowledge of the builder's existence. The existence of the building is absolute evidence of the existence of the builder.

This is a pretty crappy argument in my opinion. Our existence does not prove that there was something that created us. If his argument is brought to its logical end, you can see that it is silly. If God exists, something must have created him. So was there another God before him? You can go on and on but at some point you have to take somethings existence as a given. The universe has always existed and always will exist. You can't say the same for God, because you have no evidence that he has ever existed!

[warfare vs. environmentalism]

Say you live in the country of a warzone perse the middle east. For example, if you live in Israel. If you were to invest money would you invest it in stocks in warfare or something more long term progressive like environmental evolution? My dilemma is these are both profound though I am leaning toward environmental. which would you choose and wby?

If I were you, I'd invest in a U.S. index until you have a better understanding of how stocks work. I don't claim to be an expert, but I'd imagine that the fact that there is a war is already factored into the price of "stocks in warfare". Your question is ambiguous and therefore difficult to answer. And I'm with tenure, what exactly is "environmental evolution"?

[Rational philosophy on Noise pollution]

This has nothing to do with sound waves entering private property and everything to do with prohibiting reckless endangerment ( another Common Law notion). No one has the right to damage another person's body, even if there was no malicious intent to do so. That is why we have laws that mandate mufflers on auto, truck and motorcycle exhaust systems.

I don't think that loud music qualifies as reckless endangerment, or that it damages another persons body. It seems to me that there shouldn't be any noise pollution laws. Without zoning and what-not, private subdivisions would have developed where it would be perfectly legal and moral to kick out somebody who is disturbing the peace and preventing people within the subdivision from sleeping.

Yes. Game over.

So if sound waves entering your property are subject to property rights, are light waves also? Does that mean that the light reflecting off of the hideous pastel colored house next door is in violation of your property rights, if it prevents you from getting a full nights sleep?