Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Interests
    I have recently discovered the joy of every sensation in life, and pursue hobbies and passions that help me feel invigorated, wise and strong: Reading, writing, snowboarding, rafting, running, gardening, cooking, yoga, pilates, dancing painting, and researching legal theory-- yes, I actually dink around with writing my own revised version of the Constitution at least three times a week. When I need to "tune out" and relax I tend to play my Nintendo DS Brain Academy or pull out some logic puzzles.
  • Location
    Denver, CO
  • Gender

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Country
    United States
  • Biography/Intro
    I am relatively new to objectivism and will apologize now for what is bound to seem like my ignorance on some issues. I have read all of Rand's fiction and most of her non-fiction and feel comfortable discussing her philosophy but I am also seeking to gain more wisdom from some who are perhaps more well-versed. My career demands an adherance to reason, and while mistakes I have made in my life have contradicted reason at times I am glad to have found it at last and live by it now. I am looking forward to actively using my cognition amongst like-minded people to continue to help me grow as a person.
  • Copyright
  • School or University
    University of Colorado at Boulder
  • Occupation
    Former Montessori teacher, current insurance agent, and future civil or Constitutional attorney

4reason's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. I don't know... he's got a lot to screw up to even come close to equaling the ineptitude and evil nature of FDR, Wilson and Lincoln in my book. But who knows... the term is still young. He reminds me of FDR a lot, and that can't be a good sign The more I learn about FDR the more I wonder about Obama... I am reading a book called "New Deal or Raw Deal" about FDR and I keep finding argument after argument of his that Obama seems to be rehashing. Bleh!
  2. This is encouraging. Not only was I surprised to see so many large protests across the country, but I am quite surprised at the amount of coverage these protests are getting in the media. It's just too bad that the Republicans are trying to politicize these events to their advantage... as if Republicans don't tax and spend, too Edit: I failed to notice Zip's topic along the same topic; maybe the mods would be so kind to merge the two, if possible?
  3. Here's another example of someone trying to make BO sound like some kind of free market advocate. I laughed and laughed.... This author, too, likes to point to what BO says, and what he's read ... but he ALSO seems to look past what he's actually doing. Huh. Barack Obama is #1 Hayekian in the World The immediate responses to the article at the bottom of the page are encouraging, though.
  4. I voted for sex-segregation, but that is with the current "stall-design" in mind. Were there individual rooms where voyeuriusm was more or less ruled out, I would not be too opposed to the unisex idea: that's why smaller stores/ restaurants that just have one bathroom/one toilet don't bother me too much. When possible, though, I still prefer the sex-segregation. I am not grossed out by men's bathroom habits any more than I am by women: who are these women, for example, who don't flush the toilet after taking a giant crap?!? I think it is more of a safety and/or voyeurism prevention thing for me. Let's not make it any easier for some perverted guy to stick a hidden camera in a bathroom And, yes, for all you guys voting for unisex, I am quite sure you would change your minds once you, too, got to experience the line-waiting that we women love so much.
  5. "For You" John Denver (definitely my #1) "Unforgettable" & "When I fall in love"- Nat King Cole\ "Dream Catch Me" Newton Faulkner "Falling in Love at a Coffee Shop" Landon Pigg "Unchained Melody" Righteous Brothers "This Naked Woman" (I think it's by Nina Story... where's my ipod when I need it) "The Story" Brandi Carlisle "When the Stars go Blue" by U2 & The Corrs "All is full of Love" Bjork... and I am willing to take the flack for liking some of Bjork's stuff "Anything you want" Roy Orbison "I can't help falling in love with you" Elvis And despite the melancholy story of the song, "Almost Lover" by A fine Frenzy
  6. I wish I could set a bedtime and stick to it! I would kill to be able to go to sleep when I want to - which is usually around 10:30 or so - but pretty much every night there's something else that needs to be done (laundry, preparing for an appt with a client the next day, etc) that I usually end up staying up past that point. I don't even get home from the gym until after 10 for crying out loud! Then, when I do finally get to bed, I end up laying there awake for a long time: sometimes two or three hours more. I have tried to make the best of that time, to be "productive," but even though I am not tired enough to fall asleep, my mind is exhausted. I seem to have one window of opportunity in which I will get this feeling where I know, "Okay, if I lay down now I will be asleep within ten minutes," which is great if I can lay down then. But, when I have to force myself to stay awake through that "window" I then find it impossible to sleep. What's really annoying is that I seem to be unable to prevent myself from crashing every Sunday: I end up having to nap for two to three hours every Sunday now, to catch up. So where you think you're gaining hours of productivity, I would contend that you actually lose them later, so you're not really making any gains at all. Does anyone else recall that Seinfeld episode where Kramer tried to implement DaVinci's supposed and strange sleeping cycle? And then he ended up being tossed into the river in a body bag by a bunch of mobsters... Hilarious! Of course, maybe I am not the right person to ask: I couldn't fall asleep at all two nights ago because I was so troubled by the 17th amendment, of all things. Yes, the Constitution (or rather, our government's historical interpretation and lack of understanding of it) denies me of sleep quite often. Thus I would recommend setting a bedtime and sticking to it: it's healthier and will make your waking hours more efficiently productive. Just staying up more hours doesn't seem to do the trick; I remember staying awake a lot in college to work on some plans at the drafting studio, or to cram for a final and you know what: the work I got done in those hours that I stayed awake didn't do anything for me. What I drew was crappy, and anything I tried to memorize when tired was never remembered. If you CAN sleep then sleep, and consider yourself lucky!
  7. 4reason

    Dog Ban

    I couldn't agree more and yes, it is true MOST insurance companies will not insure your home or landlord property, or even you as a renter if you own a "wild animal" or a dog of a "vicious breed" (pit bulls, namely, but Chows are creeping in as problematic in the insurance world). Likewise, in Colorado, a landlord can legally turn you down as a renter if you own a pit bull, and they cannot be sued for discrimination on this groud (if I were a landlord, I certainly wouldn't want a tenant with a pit bull because if something did happen, I could be held vicariously liable). Some insurance companies will still insure you/ your home (my company included) but only on the condition that you include an endorsement that EXCLUDES coverage for bodily injury caused by your dog (ie, the company will not extend the liability that your insurance comes with to cover injuries caused by your dog). Also, many companies offer an umbrella policy that offers personal liability in million dollar increments (which I highly recommend that all people have- they're stupid cheap for tons of coverage). Some companies exclude you from even being eligible for an umbrella if you have a pit bull; and those that will still let you have an umbrella will, again, make you exclude coverage for injuries that dog causes. Many cities that ban pit bulls will let you keep them if you can prove you have at least $100k in liability to cover injuries they may cause: the catch-22 is, of course, that insurance won't let your liability extend to your dog so there's not a whole lot you can do (unless there are smaller carriers out there that are willing to take on such a risk, but I don't know of any here in the Denver area). I love that there are these "private" controls out there to discourage people from having pit bulls. I believe people should be able to own a pit bull, but at the same time they must realize that in so doing they must assume liability if that animal injures someone else. I personally would never take the risk; I have a client who is being sued because his pitbull bit a medical student and ended up permanently disabling their hand - thus thwarting their studies to become a surgeon. So not only is he being sued for the injury itself, but he is also being sued for lost future income. Take the annual income of a surgeon, multiply it by at least 25 working years... ouch. The lawyer wouldn't be pursuing it except for the fact the the client himself is a surgical student so he is, in the legal/tort world, considered highly sueablle because of his own large future income. The risk isn't worth it; just buy a gun for goodness sake - there's less liability to assume
  8. Question: have you gotten to John Galt's speech yet? It's been a while since I have read AS so I can't remember if it is at the 3/4 point or past that. That speech may help answer a lot of these questions you're asking in regards to business. For one, your example regarding junk loans doesn't work because those loans are backed by the government. When government gets involved in business, it releases business from feeling the need to act in their own self-interest. Why worry if a loan is profitable if taxpayers take the biggest hit if it's not? When business is left to its own devices, it HAS to operate in its own self-interest to survive; they desire to earn profit and must act in a way to do so. (BY the way, I would highly suggest reading up on Adam Smith's writing, if you have not yet done so). When government gets involved, that profit-motive is no longer what drives the action of business: they don't have to worry about profit if someone else foots the bill for their mistakes. Read Galt's speech and that will be a start for you. I can't work with your example of a business buying up all the roads to a city and launching some kind of war of attrition to make a quick buck because it would not happen in a free market. In a free market, there is competition: competition which prevents one company from becoming "all powerful." Monopolies, contrary to what we're taught in school, cannot happen in a free market. Monopolies only happen when businesses accrue "unnatural" protections that are sanctioned and guarded by the guns of the government. Also, do you think rational people - or even unrational people for that matter- would just keep going "oh well" and forking over more and more money to drive on a road? At some point they would rebel... much like the American colonists rebeled against the taxes they didn't approve of. But even if this situation did occur in a free market (which, again, is impossible), if the roads were overtaken by some corrupt crazy businessman, you can bet your bottom that someone wold come along with an invention to get you around it... such as some sort of hovercraft, or a massive growth in companies offering helicopter and small commuter plane rides. Could that corrupt business start shooting them down? I suppose, but then we're talking about a war and are no longer talking just business. But make no mistake: Atlas Shrugged in no way suggests that objectivism works in isolation. Objectivism stresses philosophical integration and the elimination of contradictions. To have it only work in isolation would mean that you are using different philosophies subjectively, to meet the different needs of different moments. If your doing that, you are not philosophically integrated and thus are rife with contradictions. John Galt will help introduce you to that
  9. I just recently celebrated my first anniversary with someone who is not an O'ist and I will offer that up as additional proof that objectivists can find love outside of objectivism. He has never read any Ayn Rand, or any philosophy for that matter and in most cases I would be troubled by that but his actions, his values and convictions more than make up for that lack. There are definitely certain types of non-objectivists that I would never be happy with: an evangelical Christian, for example. I think I would really struggle with anyone who was devoted to a religion... but my boyfriend is not: he just as much a skeptic as I am in that regard. He may not be an Objectivist, but he definitely puts existence before consciousness, and I respect that. He also pursues what he wants with extreme passion... and I really love that! I think the fact that we both pursue what we want passioantely is what attracted us to each other in the first place (we met online, so our attraction began by reading each others profiles: profiles which summed up what we saught to achieve in life). Whether or not we can sit down and have a discussion about the Fountainhead really doesn't matter to me. We have mutual interests, they are just in areas other than explicit philosophy. But his actions show me what his philosophy is at is core, and his actions therefore compel me to love him. For example, he is passionate about modern design. When I watch him plan out a clients entire home my toes curl in my shoes it is such an exquisite feeling. He tells me he feels the same when he is watching me paint or interact with children. He acts in an objectivist way... even though he's never been exposed to it aside from me bringing it up from time to time. We do have one area of contention, politics, but we both have learned to laugh at our differences more than anything. He calls me stubborn and pessimistic, and I call him naive and ignorant. Not really , but we do tease each other. I amsympathetic to his cause: I too use to have liberal leanings before I knew any better. He may come away from those leanings, he may not. As long as he does not degrade me for my opinions and does not try to force his upon me, I am not bothered by his political thinking. He is not openly statist or anything like that; he just has a hard time seeing how "good things" may have a bad impact. He can't see as many implications as I can, in other words, but thats okay. Listening to him try and justify his position forces me to think through my own once more in a fun Socratic type of way. Other than politics, however, we have many of the same interests and have introduced many of our interests to each other: he taught me to snowboard, I taught him to dance. He introduced me to modern design (and the LC4 recliner chair which I would live in if I could) and I introduced him to INdian food. We both value and pursue education ardently, and we enjoy teaching each other what we know. He teaches me about geology and minimalist design, and I teach him about the Founding Fathers and law (and insurance and roth IRAs, which bores him to death!). I also teach him how to teach. He teaches snowboarding to kids one day a week, and I teach him all I know from my Montessori experience. What is important then, to bind an O'ist with a non-O'ist in a happy relationship, is that your highest values must still correlate and you must share some interests. That's what is necessary for any happy relationship, in fact, whether Objectivists are involved are not. This allows you to know that the person you are with sees in you what you value most about yourself, and likewise you see in them and love them for those things that they most value about themselves. Reciprocity in values leads to reciprocity in attraction and mutual happiness. I love being loved for what I love about myself. I tease him and tell him I would love him more if he joined me in my political stubbornness, but he knows I am just teasing. The fact that he knows I am teasing proves to me that he understands what my values are and what order they take in my life... and that thought alone gives me goosebumps.
  10. Granted, I am not a male respondent, but perhaps a female perspective might help here: Contrary to popular belief women often struggle with this same issue. Many women, I believe, find themselves attracted to multiple members of the opposite sex even when they are in a committed relationship. I also believe many women love more than one man (let's keep it hetero for the sake of simplicity here), yet based on my conversations with women I know I think many women are like myself in that they only exclusively act on one of those loves at a time. There may be more than one object of attraction, or even more than one object of love, but in my experience there is always one that is more dominant than the other. It is possible to be in love with more than one person, but often we are only acting out in pursuit of that love which we value more. How does a woman determine which love is more worthy of pursuing? That's easy: reciprocity. Knowing that someone sees in you what you value most about yourself, and seeing that they desire to love you because of that makes you love them. Granted, someone could pose the argument that polygamy can offer several parties capable of offering this to someone, but my personal experience (having only ever been a monogomist in terms of action) has always been marked by one love being stronger than any and all others. I may notice a good looking actor or passer-by, but I have never taken it beyond that acknowledgement. I have never fantasized about it either. The love that I am experiencing value from is the one that holds my heart above all others, and no amount of lust or temptation could tempt me from it. I can't imagine it is much different with men. I am not about to start the argument of which romantic lifestyle is more ethical (monogamy v polygamy); I don't think that argument is directly pertinent here in the broader sense. More to the point, I don't think it is necessary for me to tell you that there is a difference between acknowledging the fact that you are attracted to someone else and seeking to act on that attraction. Now, the real question is: does the mere act of fantasizing about someone else mean that you are seeking to act on that attraction? In my opinion, I would argue no: as long as "the act" begins and ends in fantasy you are utilizing your freewill and recognizing that it is best not to let that particular thought direct your actions. But.... when the act of fantasizing is COMBINED with a general, or even a fleeting sense of disatisfaction ... when you start to feel that urge to direct your actions of love elsewhere: that is a red flag. Here is where you need to stop and evaluate what you are really seeking not only from your girlfriend but from relationships in general. I would concur with the above suggestions that you give yourselves time apart. Your mind, and hers both, will be clouded from truly making this assessment if you continue as you are. See what life is like without her; if it is unbearable, you have your answer. It sounds like you felt that way before, but the fact that your old feelings of disatisfaction returned almost immediately after resuming your relationship is clear proof that you did not yet find your answer. Time apart can be a valuable thing: it can be the waittime to the resupmtion of an even greater love with that person than you had before or it can be a new beginning. Notice how neither option is terrible. Break clear for a while, think about what qualities you value in romantic relationships, what is worth pursuing in love that will bring you happiness... only after you have answered these quandaries can you really determine whether or not you want to be with that one person exclusively in a committed relationship. You may lose that love, but if you value yourself as much as you should you should be willing to take this risk. If it was a great love you will never forget it/her. Maybe you will get her back after losing her. But even if you lose her forever by taking this risk you will, at the very least, know what will make you happy in love and that is the biggest reward love has to offer. Love has to be reciprocal to bring happiness; and that requires two individuals who know exactly what it is they seek to gain through it. You need to know what you want. I carry two great loves in my heart, but it is because I endured the heartache of losing one that I was able to define, without a doubt, what I wanted to find in the other that I continue to act upon. Do this. Separate yourself from her - do it for yourself. How the sotry ends depends on the evaluations that this separation will enable you to make. None of us can predict that.
  11. While I am a firm believer in celebrating love everyday, I have to work late today, so my boyfriend and I celebrated Valentine's yesterday with a Hibachi dinner outing and will conclude the day today with chocolate fondue, strawberries, and some of my homemade vanilla sponge cake. Any holiday that involves the consumption of chocolate is great by my standards; I would still celebrate Valentine's Day in this manner even if I was single. Yummy!
  12. Yuck. This sounds like something Ellsworth Toohey would write. It's one thing to devote yourself to what you do, and stirve to excel in it, but to subjugate one's self. Hey -We could use this to assuage slaves: don't ever contemplate disrespecting your master... just subjugate yourself to his authority. IT's a long standing tradition in human history, so it's ok. Do what you're told to do and do it well; not because you wnat to , but because you should. Don't you feel better now?
  13. Well, at least we can say they are consistant in thier pattern of making our Constitutional government more and more un-Constitutional. Ordinarily I would find predicatbility in government comforting, but not this time. Anybody have any idea when construction will be finished at Galt's Gulch?
  14. Yes, factions were of concern, but their opinions about it evolved beyond this quote you reference. A good illustration would be to look at letters that ADams and Jeffersons wrote around the beginning of the French Revolution. The letters they exchanged between each other at this time were few and reserved - because they were starting to realize their differences. For Jefferson's real opinion, look at his letters to Madison. For Adams real opinion, look at his journal or his letters to Elbridge Gerry. Jefferson and ADams don't start to really be honest with each other (and Adams always more revelaing than Jefferson), until their retirement years. Jefferson was also equally apprehensive of aristocracy; something that he never really communicated to Adams effectively, thus Adams often underestimated his skepticism. The FOunders' letters to each other can be confusing; you have to realize who their true confidants were before you can start citing their opinions. In 1787, ADams and Jefferson were beginning to realize their differences. Adams liked to try and get explanations out of others - to try and get their insight -- but Jefferson was always very reserved... esp with people whose political intentions and philosophy he was beginning to question. In 1787, he was still friends with ADams by all appearances, but at the same time you also find him conceeding to others that he agreed with Franklin's assessment of Adams as being " absolutely out of his senses." As for whether or not Adams was anti-American the answer is simply no. With Hamilton, however, if we are defining "anti-American" as someone who stood against the principles this country was founded upon then yes - I would assert that Hamilton was anti-American. He is, as a matter of fact, the Founder who is guilty of creating the myth of "implied power" -- he is the one who pretended like the 10th Amendment did not exist, and the first politician to begin creating meaning out of things that simply were not "in" the Constitution. The Constition was, as aequalsa mentioned, intended to limit the federal government's power by bestowing to it only those powers it enumerated. Hamilton was unsatisfied with this and thus he is the one who lead the charge on finding loopholes. Of all the despicable things he wrote in his lifetime, the most un-American quote that comes to mind is from his Report on Manufactures, in which he wrote: " The power to raise money is plenary and indefinite [in the Constitution]... The terms general welfare were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed." Well, no, maybe worse was a comment from his piece on the COnstitutionality of the Bank of the United States, where he wrote "Implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally [to the FEderal government] with express ones." Implied powers? This had come up in the debates of the COnstitutional COnvention and it was precisely because the Founders were aware that they might be leaving power up to interpretation that they put the 10th Amendment in place; it states that the Fed is limited to the powers as stated in the COnstitution and all others not expressly listed were reserved to the states (ie, they could decide for themselves). Hamilton is the original weasel who clung to the phrase "general welfare" as some kind of loophole that authorized the Federal government to do whatever it felt like doing. That is unequivocably an anti-American idea - it defies the whole purpose of the Revolution. It was also Hamilton who advocated for a PERMANENT executive who held the power to VETO all state legislation. How does that fit into the model of a Republic? He may have been a great soldier for Washington in battle, but he remains, in my mind one of the most corrupt souls to ever walk upon this continent: he was nothing BUT an advocate for highly centralized (and largely unlimited) power, mercantilist trade practices and government intervention in economics. He championed the the ideas of public debt, high taxation, protectionism and government controlled banks. Exactly which one of those ideas is American to you? Obama might say, and take actions that prove he believes, these ideas are American but I reject them entirely. Hamilton was, therefore anti-American UNLESS we are to define American as one who puts the powers of the government above the rights of the people - as Obama seems inclined to do (though he is crafty at veiling his intentions: more crafty than Hamilton), then Hamilton would be the greatest American ever. But I hate that definition. And I despise the fact that Obama is yet another advocate of Hamilton's f'ed up principles. Obama did not create these problems; one could argue Hamilton did. But Obama is yet another cog in these faulty notion of Americanism that has developed over the last two hundred years. Our country's government was meant to exist primarily for the protection of the populations' rights - now our government seems more inclined to overstep its powers to appease enough people in order to simply protect itself. It doesn't seem to care what rights are tampled upon as long as the masses are appeased enough not to overthrow the government. The whole pattern is just sad. There's a reason why ADams and Jefferson both died so distraught about where they saw the country heading: the country was moving away from what they had fought against, and toward what Hamilton advocated for: big government.
  15. Okay, I agree the phrase "vast majority" may not have been the best phrase to illustrate what I was trying to get at... True, there are MANY Americans out there who do oppose Obama, and I will agree with you that he is in the honeymoon phase. But what troubles me is not how much coverage he gets (or the coverage that his supporters get) but the nature of that coverage. The big emphasis seems to be how his election is being tauted as proof of the ability of a member of a minority group to rise to power: grandparents cry at the thought of his election because they think of what they went through in their own day in the Civil Rights movements, and the thought of what their ancestors went through as slaves. These are valid assessments, but I am very troubled by how both the media and many of Obama's supporters see him as a SYMBOL rather than a POLITICIAN. When people hold someone with great political power up as a symbol, they tend to be less judgmental of mistakes and gross violations of liberty that that individual may condone. I think back to John Adams and how troubled he was at the level of public veneration for figures such as Geroge Washington. Had someone such as Adams - who held much less public veneration- acted to suppress Shay's rebellion, I am sure the result, and the outrage on the public's behalf, would have been much different. Veneration is dangerous in politics; people can get so caught up in the good about someone (or the good they think that someone possesses) that they forget to remain vidulant. That was my point. I am worried about how Obama is a symbol more than he is a person. I have come across many supporters of his who cannot explain a single one of his viewpoints on any issue, besides spurting out some nonsense about "he represents change." What is more troubling is how the media is almost exclusively defining change as always being for the better... this is only compounding the fact that many ignorant Americans are already failing to see how change can also be for the worse. Obama represents change, yes, but so did Napoleon, and Stalin, and Hitler. I am not equivocating these historical figures; I am just using these men as examples of change having occured for the worse. I sincerely hope we NEVER see the 22nd amendment repealed. Even if there was a fantastic President in there who rightfully earned the support of the majority of Americans - a majority who desired his continuation in office, I am of the belief that the slate needs to be wiped clean from time to time: otherwise, there is too much potential for people to become too entrenched in connections and favors, creating an open door for plutarchy, inherited office and all those nasty things this country was established in oppostion of. Wiping the slate clean is, in my estimation, one of the prinary things that prevents such non-representative forms of government from taking complete hold in this country again. There are enough bad influences in government as it is right now - esp in terms of favoritism - so lets hope the 22nd is never repealed so that these checks can remain in place. Politicians are people too and we should judge them as such. I just hope my fellow Americans can continue to do the same.
  • Create New...