Erik Christensen

Seeker, in a lot of respects you are describing "Galt's Gulch" from Atlas Shrugged. It's definitely workable. Sign me up!

Ok, to those who are pessimistic about Seeker's idea, WE GET IT. But, instead of giving all the reasons why it won't work, etc. why not try and contribute to the idea of how it CAN work. Be a part of the solution for hell's sake. Sure it has its obstacles, but I give credit to him for, at a minimum, seeking an answer to a very real problem of statism, and one option on how to establish a more free society.

I like your idea, Seeker. The "Free State Project" was in the same vein, but aimed more at a state level. One thing is for sure, trying to (re)establish a government based on individual rights and l.f. capitalism is better than not doing anything at all, regardless of wether the change is local, State, or Federal. Cities are all unique, given their location, on their comparative level of individual liberty.-i.e. compare the laws of New York City to that of Las Vegas. I welcome idea's such as the ones Seeker has presented to further the cause of freedom.

Western: High Noon Sci-fi: Serenity Drama: Braveheart Romance: The Notebook Action: Casino Royale Comedy: Bringing Up Baby

Spiritualized, Marcy Playground, Cake, Jack Johnson, The Stone Roses, Cracker, Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton, Norah Jones, Mazzy Star, The Black Crowes, Jet, Travis, Johnny Cash, The Rolling Stones, Velvet Underground, Oasis, Ryan Adams...

Sad news indeed. But, there is hope on the horizon. http://www.collegeunitedstates.org/

Thank you for posting this, Myrhaf. I have tried, usually in vain, to tell my friends and acquaintances about some of the less than stellar idea's of MLK. In my opinion it brings a better picture into focus about his actions, words, and motivating factors. Anytime anyone is deified as such should give one pause. Yes, MLK was correct in his speech when he stated the individual's character should supersede any race based factor, but reading some of his other mis-directed idea's brings MLK into a more realistic respect with reservations.

liveleak.com has put 'Fitna' back up!

Europe's spine is in the evil hands of the islamists.

Vince Flynn is an excellent author. A no-nonsense CIA agent takes on islamist scum. Right now I am reading 'Executive Power'.

Attention!-this is a must see. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

I find it rather silly that there have been several Oist articles on the main page of objectivismonline.net that seem to be holding the right responsible for more environmental kookiness and problems than the left. i.e. Gus Van Horns article 'Green with Envy'. Give me a break! Yes, there are plenty of people on the right who have been sold on global warming junk science, like Huckabee and his crowd, but that's the exception to the rule. The fact is that environmentalism is and always will be the left's 'mother of all crises'. Unfortunately, some Oist toe the Peikoff line and no longer blame the left for anything, including environmentalism, now every and all problems are strictly from the right. I'm not buying that because it is intellectually and factually dishonest.

This show sucks; John Connor is a pussy and his mom is a super commando fighter chick?-yeah, that's reality.

The Office Modern Marvels Curb Your Enthusiasm Futurama 24

Drug resistant bacterial infections are not only growing in third world nations, but the technology to defeat these new strains is barely keeping up. Just Google it and you'll find tons of information on the problem. Part of the problem IS the easy accessability in 3rd world nations to anti-biotic drugs. What happens many times is that these bacteria become resistant from the wrong use of the medication etc., and these strains find their way into developed nations via the poorer countries. Just because an rx company can discover a new anti-biotic shouldn't mean it can be sold at their whim to whomever and whenever. Yes, they have a right to their work and a right to any monies profited thereby, but context is important here. It's like saying the individuals who built nuclear bombs have the right sell them and their technology to whoever desires them. That's insanity. Those are arguments that anarchists try to use to justify a free for all. "A context-dropper forgets or evades any wider context. He stares at only one element, and he thinks, "I can change just this one point, and everything else will remain the same." In fact, everything is interconnected. That one element involves a whole context, and to assess a change in one element, you must see what it means in the whole context." ---Leonard Peikoff

Here is a very good primer on anti-biotic resistance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance

Kendall, are you kidding me?

Maarten, I wasn't trying to be offensive. I was drawing a comparison on the wide scale death that would ensue were the government allow a full deregulation of all anti-biotic medication. It is akin to a non-violent biological attack against the individuals in society. Just as the US government does not allow the sale of biological agents that terrorists want on the counter of your local Wal-Mart, so too must they protect the population at large against a threat even more nefarious, anti-biotic resistant super-bugs. If you're like me, when you get a tooth infection or an infection from a cut or what not, you probably don't want to die from something that trivial. The mortality that would ensue from drug resistant strains would be staggering. In fact, it's hard enough trying to keep a hold on it now. I think that you may be confusing viral infection with bacterial. They are very different. You said "I don't think people taking antibiotics when they aren't needed is any worse than someone's natural defenses doing the same thing." May I recommend taking a course on immunology and pharmacology?

I am a pharmacist too, and I agree that the sale of anti-biotics should be under some supervision. It's akin to chemical warfare of sorts if one were allow their sale to be fully de-regulated. I liken the comparison to objective gun control laws.-It's moral that man has the right to own a handgun, taser, rifle, or shotgun, but obviously it is not moral to allow him to possess nuclear weapons or weapons of large scale destruction. The former are weapons of self defense whereas the latter are weapons of total offense. With antibiotics being fully de-regulated it would unleash a superbug nightmare that could be considered a biological attack against society. Maarten, you are wrong on your assessment.

Excellent post, Sophia!

Ayn Rand in particular and Objectivism in general understands as well as appreciates the unique differences between the sexes. It is their unique differences that they celebrate, along with both sexes ability for productive achievement of ones rational values. It is not a philosophy that blends men and women into a unisexual blob where only abilities matter. Objectivism does not try to negate the nature unique to both men and women, which is why I think Ayn Rand railed against the modern feminist movement, they were blinding the line between men and women.

"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man. "To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments. A "clinging vine" type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack. This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such—which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader." ---Ayn Rand

American Gothic; http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y161/ldub...feat-Nav-de.jpg

Lincoln wasn't without his fine qualities, but he is not even close to this great 'savior of the Union' President that some historians have praised him to be. I find it rather disturbing how you will go to great lengths to exonerate Lincoln's immoral behavior and actions. Read 'Lincoln Unmasked' by Dilorenzo. “Lincoln Unmasked is a masterpiece response to the crowd that DiLorenzo calls the Lincoln cult. He names names, and names places, in what is a fascinating read and correction to one of the most important episodes in U.S. history.” —Walter E. Williams, nationally syndicated columnist and John M. Olin Professor of Economics at George Mason University

Adrian you said,"...compensated emancipation in Delaware shows quite well that Lincoln was no hypocrite" ---are you kidding me? At best he was a mixed bag. He could have done a lot more, but chose not to. Slavery is a disgusting mar on our US history, and Lincoln did a horrible job dealing with it. "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." ---Abraham Lincoln.