ex_banana-eater

If we're talking "public" things and not money to people I know or spending *directly* on myself: I would donate some to ARI and request that they give priority to fixing up the area I call home, first. They rest would be up to them. I'm sure they would purchase some type of media outlet, print 200 million copies of Objectivist works, found colleges and schools, and other things. I'd fund a billion dollar manned Mars mission prize, and possibly the same type of prize for an orbiting space station with a time and research requirement. I would fund longevity research, cancer research, and stem cell research. I would probably use the prize method for nanotechnology research as well. Donations to universities on the condition they teach some things I request, like free-market economic theories. ARI would probably already be doing that with Objectivism, like the founder of BB&T tried to do. I'd also give to battered women's shelters, The Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy, promote youth and adult Pankration leagues, sea cadets, and set up funds to help support struggling (good) artists (like romantic realism) and writers. 19 and a finance student.

Yes. I remember some people here critisizing Saving Private Ryan because the soldiers were given an altruistic mission. Emotionally, that's not the part that brings me joy in the movie. Seeing bravery and seeing people effective at what they do is what I admire--and that is something the film portrays. It depends whether you're enjoying the peice for its irrationality or for another element.

I can think of a reason for the American military to be in Iraq: To defeat all of the Islamic terrorists and their supporters who operate out of that country, like Al Queda. The rebuilding of Iraqi oilfields, as far as I know, is not being paid for by taxpayers, is it? I thought companies paid and competed for the contracts. Why would the government need to pay a company to operate in one of the most economically lucrative industries on the planet? They should be able to turn profits from drilling oil fairly easily. I see no problem with the US seizing any oilfield in the Middle East (apart from Israel) and picking an American company to resume production. These dictatorships have no right to the oil, which was owned by Western companies until it was nationalized in the first place. Infact, they have no rights at all, and it would be in America's interest to topple the governments while using valuable resources like oil to help recompensate us for the wars they've declared on us.

He told me he would read it but did not give any feedback. I also did not request any feedback, seeing as how he indicated he is very busy. Chomsky's philosophy has been dealt with by Ayn Rand herself in "The Stimulus and the Response." I believe that Deborah Knapp, an Objectivist intellectual, has also cast doubt on Chomsky's theory about language acquisition/innateness. Moose, think of Chomsky as one of the "Witch Doctors" and Bin Ladin as an "Attila." I can't remember where Ayn Rand elaborated on this. If anyone knows, please post.

Pat's got an impressive range of motion there, a whole one inch with his arms on his legs.Since I've been modelling my workout after him, I start with Pat Robertson presses then move on to Evangelical Easy-Bar extensions or superset with Christian cable crossover curls.

I haven't actually read his book, Reason and Value: Aristotle Vs Rand, but I get the impression much of his motive is to combat Objectivism. Whether that is true or not I'm not sure, but I can tell from the reviews that it certainly misrepresents Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Reconstruction is simply welfare paid for by Americans to the enemy population. Our only goal of the government is to eliminate the military threat as quickly as possible. Occupation is sometimes in our self-interest though. If the war on militant Islamic countries had been fought properly, I do not think an occupation in Iraq would be needed, at least not on the current scale. This is based on what I know about Japan's occupation--which is admittedly little. In case you haven't read it, Just War Theory Vs American Self Defence by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein is available for free. It is also available in audio somewhere on that site. The two talks that have grounded my understanding of war sufficiently enough to meet my needs are "The Morality Of War" by Yaron Brook, and what I just linked to. ARI has a tonne of articles on this subject at America At War.

Ayn Rand had her central purpose in life abstracted into one statement: To portray the ideal man. I've recently defined mine: "To teach how to achieve one's material values." At this point, I haven't taught much because I am in the process of educating myself, which is a step toward this purpose.

In this example you ask to take a war like the one in Iraq and Afghanistan. You ask "what happens when there are not enough troops to sustain a war?" but this assumes there are not enough troops to defeat our enemies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and other places. I think your question and the situation are entirely unrelated. Our vastly inferior enemies in the Middle East could be annihilated with a few planes alone, if we were to fight a war egoistically--that is, morally.

I'm just going to jump in: I'm not a military expert, but from what I see I think the US could drastically cut down on their defence spending. The US has troops sitting in countries all over the world, including Europe and other nations where they aren't really needed for American defence. In my estimate, the US currently relies too much on ground troops. If one were to look at Iraq you would see there are thousands upon thousands of troops there--just think of how much each costs. But what would be required to win a self-interested war where one ruthlessly destroys their enemies? With our current technology, I believe the answer is planes carrying large payloads of bombs as well as missiles launched from ships at sea. Bombs may be expensive, but I believe they are much less expensive than training a ground soldier, are much more likely to cause enormous destruction against the enemy, and are a means of preventing casualties on our side. Realistically, the regime in Iran could be ended without even putting Americans on Iranian soil--by simply flying into their airspace with planes and having the navy parked close enough to direct missiles at them. I think that an occupation might make sense there though, depending on how the war was waged. Still, with a proper war, this should cost fractions of what American occupations cost now.

Because he might assume a critique of Just War Theory would be pacifistic. I did tell him that it was an article in support of self-defence, but I'm sure he will expect pacifism as that is the only alternative in the culture today.

Very likely once Objectivism because a dominant voice in the culture. Extremely unlikely if it doesn't.

I just got a response back, he said he has had a "deluge of mail" but will read the article when he has time, and thanked me for it. Haha! I'm sure he will be shocked when he reads it.

Education would then be based on a rational understanding of epistemology. Here is an example. Also, free market competition would result in improvements in teaching methods and materials. There would be various factors effecting crime rate. The first thing to keep in mind is that a capitalist country would have a strong Objectivist cultural influence. People would recognize that initiating force is not in their interest. Other reinforcing factors from the political system include the legalization of drugs, which would no longer provide revenues and power for violent organized crime groups. Police would have more time and funding to devote to actual crimes.

He has responded to me and my friends before.

If America was completely capitalist, and a significant portion of the population was Objectivist or Objectivist influenced, we would have an unimaginably high standard of living and wealth increasing at rates many times faster than now, technological advances would be much more frequent, our life spans would be longer, universities would be places where people would go to flourish, children would be taught how to think properly throughout grade school, there would be very low crime, beautiful symphonies would be created, as well as works of art and dramas, people would be benevolent toward eachother as potential traders, and many other wonderful things I could go on and on about. It would be very different from now.

The report said that he believes just war theory is not sufficiently explained. I emailed Chomsky a link to The Objective Standard's article "Just War Theory vs American Self Defence" by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein, and linked to the audio lecture by the same name. I'll let you guys know if he responds, but I didn't pose any questions so he probably won't.

In my experience, this is usually an indication that she isn't crazy for you. Gals will find time. My last romantic interest would work overtime until 1:15AM when I had my first break (I worked graveyard shift) just to see me for 15 minutes. I know that I would personally "make" time for someone I really wanted to see too. Someone also mentioned here to not take advice from other women about how to attract women. This really depends on how often the woman introspects and understands why she feels attraction. Most ladies tell me they want a "sweet guy" who will take her out, etc. What I've found is that the same woman who tells me this responds immensely to something different: Being a dynamic, funny, exciting, interesting, captivating, and memorable guy--with a hint of mystery and a small indication that you are both a sexual being and are interested in her. When a gal says she wants flowers, it typically means she wants a guy who will give her flowers, but wants all of those other qualities I listed first!

We do indeed have moral values that are absolutes--contextually. One of the fundamental characteristics of Objectivism is that in epistemology as well as morality, conclusions should be arrived at objectively, not intrinsically. To say that alcohol is immoral or moral would be implying an intrinsic quality to the entity, apart from any individual. But morality is not a quality apart from us, it arises through us, and is therefore personal for each individual. The "contextual" part that you may have left out in your post is the effect of the amount of alcohol on the individual.

I think beauty and sexual attractiveness are two separate (but often related) things. It may help to differentiate between the two in this thread. Also, you may want to more clearly understand the difference between the subjective and the personal. What is objective is agent-relative (if I'm using that term correctly), so be careful not to confuse it with the intrinsic. Beauty is a sense of harmony that one recognizes in a trait. Thus, it is objective, meaning what one finds beautiful forms from an evaluation of the characteristics of the entity which are being perceived. Here is an article entitled "What is Beauty" by Burgess Laughlin. This will probably help with your questions.

This study is shocking to me. Where I live, people I know either admire my atheism or see nothing wrong with it. Of my graduating class in high school, maybe 5 people attended church regularly (of 130). To boot, most of my close friends are not just agnostic or non-religious, but explicitly atheists. Young people who go to church every Sunday are looked at very strangely in my age group. I live across the road from a Catholic church and the average age of the attendees must be 60. I'm happy to be in this type of cultural climate.

I am in favour of citizenship under a fully capitalist government to create funding and other valuables for the government. I would offer citizenship to those citizens who had retired from the military and police, as well as wealthy individuals who chose to "buy" their citizenship. This would then grant them voting rights, the ability to run for public office, and other legal incentives I can't think of right now.

Do you have any recommendations from these three non-fiction genres? I am looking for a general education so I am not being specific. Personal finance and investing can mean anything from how to buy and sell a house, handle a mortgage, get through school without student loans, or how to save for retirement.

I haven't clearly defined what "secularism" means in my head, but I would argue that Europe doesn't have it. What they do have is uncertainty and subjectivism in epistemology, which lead to their disdain of religion because of its relation with moral absolutes, allowing ID to creep in as just as legitimate as anything else.

Yes, I believe the cutoff is anything above 151 proof.