felicity

Some areas that a good contemporary constitution would address (in no specific order). These points are also at different levels of detail. It would take an expert to reduce them to their essentials, while not leaving loopholes for future courts. 1) "Separation of economics and state". Cannot say how general and how specific it would have to be...that's for a legal scholar. But, ideally, whatever clause is drafted should make it clear that the following are not functions of government: central bank, welfare, social-security, education, regulation of foreign trade. 2) Allow abortion 3) Allow immigration 4) I would be wary of any clause that gives specific ways in which the government should gather revenue. However, some type of "how not to tax" should be present. The original constituion made an attempt, but the 16th amendment undid it. It would be framed something along the lines of the original, but instead of trying to make a rule that is fair across states, one needs a rule that would be fair across individuals. 5) Disallow any election funding by or through governments. 6) Allow individuals and firms to establish what are commonly known as "monopolies". 7) Allow prostitution and homosexuality among consenting adults. 8) Establish a principle of "separation of state and morality". 9) Establish a principle of "separation of state and private rationality", in the sense that individuals have the right to be irrational and to bear the consequences... for instance in cases where I hire my wastrel nephew as my cashier, or when I deny someone a job in my firm because I have had bad experiences with other people of the same ethnicity. 10) Make it a little harder to change the Constitution... a little harder than it already is. Before changing the constitution, one has to change the dominant philosophy. If one does that, the courts will begin to "interpret" the constitution more rationally; next, some important rational amendments may be adopted...finally, perhaps, a re-write.

Are you implying that objectivists who organize the rallies around the world in support of capitalism are wrong to do so? Also, the many other rallies: suporting Kazan? supporting Elain?

Perfect for a car slogan. I also like the one that says "Ayn Rand was Right". Advertising textbooks used to (and perhaps still do) speak of four stages in moving a prospective customer from ignorance about one's product to a making a purchase: Awareness, Interest, Desire, Action ("AIDA"). When space is limited, as on a car, and when the audience is the general population of drivers on the street, awareness ("Read Ayn", "Ayn Rand was Right", etc.) are the best way to go. In the context of a lecture-poster or pamphlet, which can accommodate more words, one can try to acheive more. The first objective of the design should be to make people read it. "Get the eyeballs", which really means "be noticed", which really means "be different", which means "seem special", which means "appear to be of greater cognitive significance" than the background "field". Ideally, you'll be able to come up with a slogan that arrests a person's attention and also encapsulates the fundamentals of what you want to say. However, if you have to choose --- and perhaps only be because you are not creative enough --- use the slogan to arrest and use the rest of the text to explain. A slogan is not an argument. I agree; but, of what significance is that? Guns are the standard tools of criminals. Does that mean I should shun guns? This is related to another thread on this forum, about marketing. A lot of irrational marketing goes on in the world. That does not invalidate the rational need for market: which has its basis in the fact that human beings are not omniscient, but need to learn about reality. How should a good poster be designed? Tiny page, full of small "courier" font text that will appeal to intell1gent minds?

I think you're right, but I would now express it as follows: Nobody has ever given me something more fundamentally important than my existence. Regardless of what else they do, one's parents do one this great favor of creating you. From my child's own selfish viewpoint, being born was great, to say the least! Since having a child will always be in the child's selfish interest, the only issue to resolve is whether it is in your own selfish interest as well.

My recommendations: Black Adder, Mr. Bean, Fawlty Towers, the "Jeeves" series.

I do not think a slogan has to encapsulate the most fundamental aspect of the topic being advertised. It must be catchy... it must make the person stop and read more.

Oxygen, That's a very intriguing knot you seek to tie What you're saying is since an objectivist says: "Live for yourself", then it is contradictory to say: "I'll create a human being for my sake and my pleasure". (Do I understand you right?) I will need to think about this for a while before giving you an answer. For now, all I can say (and I know this is inadequate): I look at my 5 year old and he lives only for himself. Any pleasure I derive from that is incidental to him. All the best.

I agree with ChrissyCrunch. I think if a person agrees with substantially most of the teachings of the Catholic church but does not really understand certain teachings and does not agree with certain others, that does not make them non-Catholic. Otherwise, we end up at: "There was only one Christian, and he was Christ". As for abortion, one can make the case that abortion is against religion, in the sense that it is against the idea that God wills life into being, and it is sinful to destroy it. However, by the same reckoning, one could say that this view means that anyone who takes a non-fatalist view of life, anyone other than a monk shut up in a monastery, is not religious. This classification is not useful to me. I find it useful to classify a person as "Catholic" if they substantially follow most of Christianity's fundamental teachings.

Oxygen, that was a very interesting post. Most objectivists (and many other people) would agree that one should think rationally before having a child. I disagree with what you offer as a major basis for such a calculation. You say: The odds are that a child will be more like its parents than the "average" person (in fundamental ways). If they do turn out worse than average, they might work against my interests, but the likelihood of that is low. The odds are that I am not bringing a Toohey into the world. As for "more good than the parent"... why should that concern me? The real calculation -- and this is a really difficult one -- is where one considers all the fun and value that a child will bring to one's life and weigh that against all the fun and values you'd have without a child. Calculations of value don't have to be "cold" -- when I choose between which of two restaurants to visit tonight, I salivate at either prospect (oh, why does the day have just 24 hours!) And what better to warm the heart than the visions of a little kid or of a college senior who has 'blossomed' beyond all your expectations. Yet, in a sense, the decision has to be "cold". Many parents feel it is ungraceful to dwell on the problems and frustrations of having children. Most parents never speak about the utter boredom of some aspects of parenting. Most advertisements and "public images" portray the positive side of parenthood. Even the advertisement where the baby spits in his mom's face is done so cutely... I almost wish he was spitting at me:rolleyes: So, yes, be cold about gathering the facts. Be like a detective about understanding all the ways in which your life will have to change. Understand what you want out of life in absence of having a child. Will you be able to do all the things you want to do? Will you have the time to read the books you want to read? WIll you have the time to do the work you want to accomplish? Try to figure out what values are being 'displaced' by all the time you will spend with te new value (your child). Then, choose the set of values you want more. Parenthood is an optional value. And finally, if you do produce a Toohey, call him to your dying bed... whisper a curse in his ear...and as he turns to leave, pull the gun from under the pillow and shoot the rat.

The first Ayn Rand book I read was "The Virture of Selfishness". THis question has been asked in other places before. I thought I'd ask it here, because the "polling" feature is well-suited for it.

The 1982 Chinese constitution gave individuals the right to the money they earn and save and inherit. It also gave people certain rights to run private businesses. Even the original "red red" Chinese constitution supposedly guaranteed many freedoms. A constitution is one thing and legal practice is another. Often, when a set of amendments are made, that gives you an idea of de facto changes. Compare the "red" constitution with the 1982 one, and then again with the 1988 one. One can take issue with specific language in the constitution. However, China has made great strides. I think that is evidence of the amount of freedom people have in certain spheres of life. No doubt the Chinese government still clamps down hard on certain behaviour, but then the US government does the same for drug-dealers. (Before I get anyone's bile up, let me disclaim: I understand the US is the best country in the world and on a completely different end of the spectrum from China.) No doubt the Chinese government can still throw someone in jail and not bring them to trial for years... or hold a kangaroo trial with a judge who is obligated to the executive branch and always finds for the prosecution. China is no North Korea. I think one can predict that the government will gradually become less relevant in daily life and freedom will reign.

Oh God! not one of those.... go away, you devil !! Seriously, I'm sure there are some atheist forums out there that would better appreciate this topic.... yawn. Ok, I'l do the work for you... try this... http://www.bunda.org/writings/

I was curious about this, so I did a little "research" of my own. I let the first and last letter remain constan and tried do various things to the rest of the letters... shuffling, reversing, groiuping consonants and vowels. I also tried keeping the first letter in its place, but realxing the rule about the last letter. Also, tried relaxing all rules when it came to small words (three letters or less...because the rules keep such words unchanged). I am now on my way to my thesis on "Rules of Good 'Aarganm' Puzzle Design". Maybe some government agency will pay me to pursue this. For the curious, here are some sample outputs: A1) A few random "shuffles": The pnaohimenl poewr of the haumn mind. Arcnicdog to a rseeeachrr at Cgdbmraie Usnveitiry, it de'nsot mteatr in what oderr the lrtetes in a word are, the only impntaort tinhg is that the frsit and last letetr be at the rghit pcale. The rest can be a ttaol mess and you can slitl read it wotuhit pebrlom. This is bscaeue the hmaun mind does not read eevry letetr by iltsef, but the word as a wohle. aianmzg The pmenahnoil pweor of the haumn mind. Aidnccorg to a reaereshcr at Cibradgme Uenvtisiry, it den'ost mtetar in what odrer the letetrs in a word are, the only imtonpart tinhg is that the frist and last lteetr be at the rghit pcale. The rest can be a toatl mess and you can sltil read it whtuoit peolrbm. This is bescaue the hmaun mind does not read eervy lteetr by iletsf, but the word as a wlohe. aimazng The peimahnonl poewr of the hmuan mind. Aoccindrg to a rhcreesear at Cdarmbige Usirvienty, it deo'nst mtater in what oredr the lttrees in a word are, the only iatrmnopt tnihg is that the frist and last lteter be at the rhgit pclae. The rest can be a taotl mess and you can stlil read it whtiuot pelorbm. This is bacsuee the hmuan mind does not read evrey ltteer by iletsf, but the word as a wolhe. aamizng ---------------------------------------------- reverse A2) Reverse the order of the letters The pinamonehl pewor of the hamun mnid. Anidroccg to a rehcraeser at Cgdirbmae Utisreviny, it d'nseot mettar in waht oedrr the lrettes in a wrod are, the olny inatropmt tnihg is taht the fsrit and lsat letter be at the rhgit pcale. The rset can be a tatol mses and you can slitl raed it wuohtit pelborm. Tihs is bsuacee the hamun mnid deos not raed erevy letter by ilestf, but the wrod as a wlohe. anizamg ---------------------------------------------- vowels first A3) Put all the vowels first, then the consonants The peoaihnmnl poewr of the huamn mind. Aoiccrdng to a reeaesrchr at Caimbrdge Uieinvrsty, it doesn't maettr in waht oerdr the leettrs in a word are, the only ioamprtnt tihng is taht the first and last leettr be at the right palce. The rest can be a toatl mess and you can sitll read it wioutht poerblm. Tihs is beaucse the huamn mind does not read eevry leettr by ietslf, but the word as a wohle. aaimzng ---------------------------------------------- consonants first A4) Put all the consonants first, then the vowels The phnmneoail pwoer of the hmuan mnid. Accrdnoig to a rsrcheeaer at Cmbrdgaie Unvrstieiy, it dsn'oet mttaer in what order the lttrees in a wrod are, the only imprtnoat thnig is that the frsit and lsat ltteer be at the rghit plcae. The rset can be a ttoal mses and you can stlil read it wthiout prbloem. This is bcseaue the hmuan mnid does not read evrey ltteer by itslef, but the wrod as a whloe. amznaig ---------------------------------------------- vowels first shuffled A5) Shuffle; then, vowels first, followed by consonants The paeoinnmhl peowr of the haumn mind. Aoirdcncg to a raeeerhscr at Cairbgdme Ueiitnsvry, it deo'snt meattr in waht oerdr the leettrs in a word are, the only iaoprntmt tihng is taht the fisrt and last leettr be at the right pacle. The rest can be a taotl mess and you can siltl read it woiuhtt poelrbm. Tihs is bueasce the haumn mind does not read eevry leettr by iesltf, but the word as a wohle. aaizmng ---------------------------------------------- consonants first shuffled A6) Shuffle; then, consonants first, followed by vowels The phnmnaeoil pweor of the hmaun mnid. Acrcndiog to a rrshceeear at Cdgrmbiae Untvsreiiy, it d'nseot mttaer in what odrer the ltrtees in a wrod are, the only imrntpoat tnhig is that the frsit and lsat ltteer be at the rghit plcae. The rset can be a ttaol mses and you can sltil read it wthiuot prlbeom. This is bscaeue the hmuan mnid does not read evrey ltteer by iltsef, but the wrod as a whloe. aznmiag ---------------------------------------------- vowels first reverse A7) Reverse the order; then, vowels first, followed by consonants The piaoenmnhl peowr of the haumn mind. Aiondrccg to a reaeehcrsr at Ciagdrbme Uieitsrvny, it deo'nst meattr in waht oedrr the leertts in a word are, the olny iaontrpmt tinhg is taht the fisrt and last leettr be at the rihgt pacle. The rest can be a taotl mess and you can siltl raed it wuoihtt peolbrm. Tihs is buaesce the haumn mind deos not raed eervy leettr by ielstf, but the word as a wolhe. aianzmg ---------------------------------------------- consonants first reverse A8) Reverse the order; then, consonants first, followed by vowels The pnmnhiaoel pweor of the hmaun mnid. Andrcciog to a rhcrseaeer at Cgdrbmiae Utsrvnieiy, it d'nseot mttear in what odrer the lrttees in a wrod are, the olny intrpmaot tnhig is that the fsrit and lsat ltteer be at the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a ttaol mses and you can sltil raed it whtuoit plbreom. This is bscuaee the hmaun mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by ilstef, but the wrod as a wlhoe. anzmiag ============================================================================ Relax rule and allow 2 and three letter words to be reversed ehT piaoenmnhl peowr fo eht haumn mind. Aiondrccg ot a reaeehcrsr ta Ciagdrbme Uieitsrvny, ti deo'nst meattr ni waht oedrr eht leertts ni a word are, eht olny iaontrpmt tinhg si taht eht fisrt dna last leettr eb ta eht rihgt pacle. ehT rest nac eb a taotl mess dna uoy nac siltl raed ti wuoihtt peolbrm. Tihs si buaesce eht haumn mind deos ton raed eervy leettr yb ielstf, tub eht word sa a wolhe. aianzmg ============================================================================ C) Relax rule: Allow the last letter to be part of the shuffle, a few samples Teh piaoelnmnh peorw of teh haunm mi.dn Aiogndrcc to a reaeerhcrs at Ceiagdrbm Uiei,ytsrvn it deot'ns meartt in wath oerdr teh leesrtt in a wodr ae,r teh oyln iaotntrpm tignh is tath teh fitsr adn lats leertt be at teh rithg pea.cl Teh rets can be a taolt mess adn yuo can sillt raed it wuoitht peo.mlbr Tish is beuaesc teh haunm midn deos not raed eeyrv leertt by ie,flst but teh wodr as a weo.lh aiagnzm ============================================================================ D) No rules... shuffle everything hTe anlhneoimp worpe of eth nuamh id.nm ordccnigA to a rraeescehr at bmCeigdar iisyvt,erUn it onte'sd ettmra in wath erdro teh eslrtet in a dwor ,aer teh lnyo mparnttio gthni is ahtt het ftsri nda tasl rleett be at eht ghtri ec.pal heT tsre anc be a ttaol sesm nda ouy cna tilsl rade it oiuttwh lopbrme. hTis is eeubasc het ahumn dinm sode ont raed revey tteerl by set,ifl tub eht odwr as a lw.oeh nigzmaa ============================================================================

The sheriff's attitude is despicable. There is a similar philosophy that is creeping in from the philosophy of law: "The one with the deepest pockets should pay the most...not the one with the most guilt"

Most candidates imply that the large size of government is caused by a bureaucracy that wastes money. If elected, they will shrink this bureacracy and make it more efficient. Voters like the sound of that these days... the majority want "less government". Unfortunately, the majority also want all the government programs, and they want them to grow. (Let's add drugs to medicare.) The really good candidate --- if we ever have one --- will promise to cut government spending on programs, and will even name some illustrative programs. In the meanwhile, my vote goes to the candidate who cuts taxes. That's the only way to keep the spending in some check. No, I do not like deficits, but today they're the lesser evil. [sadly, when between a rock and a hard place , I have to choose this way!]

Good idea. Give everyone a tax break; work toward getting rid of taxes for all companies and all individuals. I'd applaud that. However, to give tax breaks specifically to companies that outsource is clearly protectionism. It is governmental action targetted at giving a benefit to domestic industry or services (even if it is the individual service of a local person). More generally, it would be just one more way in which the government influences economic decision making in companies. Just another imposition added to the workplace laws, environmental laws and "civil-rights" laws. Like all those laws, all it will acheive is costlier goods and lower standard of living in the US. Of recent trends, outsourcing will probably be one of the largest contributors to a richer america.

Were Penn and Teller taking a classical scientific stand or were they talking about morality, individual rights, etc.? The reason I ask is that there are many non-objectivist atheists who believe in a morality of altruism.

Three essays by Greenspan figured in the original "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". Greenspan makes no public statements supporting Objectivism and has not done so for many years. Some objectivists think Greenspan simply wants to keep his position of "power" at whatever cost. Others conjecture that he wants to make some impact on the world, and that he thinks this is the only way to do so (a Faustian deal?). Once he ceases to head the fed he will probably write a book. Perhaps he will reveal something then. As long as he is fed chief, his modus operandi is to speak as obscurely as possible. His speeches read as if each sentence should be followed by a clause ("true with probability x%").

A vital part of Warren Buffett's success stems from his intellectual independence. In the height of the dot-com craze, he was unmoved. He had the patience to wait out what he judged was a bubble ("the biggest transfer of wealth"). In this context, patience means keeping a long term perspective. The cornerstone of his business is buying whole companies, not just stocks. He is also reputed for his honesty and this is a business advantage when he deals with people, because they know they can trust what he says. In contrast to the charlatans who try to make a quick buck, good character (a.k.a. morality) usually underlies the really large fortunes. How can I use my morality to my advantage in the stock market? Anyone care to brainstorm? (www.berkshireHathaway.com)

Protectionism is any governmental action targetted at giving a benefit to domestic industry over foreign industry. There is no fundamental difference between imposing a tax on foreign goods and giving a tax break to local goods. There is no fundamental difference between imposing a tax on foreign services (a.k.a. foreign 'labor') and giving a tax break to local labor.

Condemning Jefferson for having slaves is like condemning the Wright brothers for not inventing the space shuttle. One step at a time, surely... It is because of the Jeffersons of the world that many of their descendants arenot racist.

Driving down the 101 with the top down, hair blowing in the wind, with my love at the wheels, ... nice... Perhaps what irritates you is not just the driving, but totality of what you see in the particular people you observe. As for DOOM... I found it to be nice clean fun. Only, for someone who doesn't play regularly, video games make my eyes spin after a while

Something I do is make notes on good and bad practices I encounter in my profession. Over the years, I have learnt a lot from these notes. Now and then, I have organized these notes into little "cheat sheets" for myself, creating my own private knowledge and methodology. If you think you are in a situation that you do not like but is the "best of the worst" for now, then perhaps you can try to learn something from it. Suppose, you noted down each particularly negative or positive customer interaction in a format like this: 1) What happened? 2) What were the causes, major and minor? 3) What could the business have done for this bad situation not to have taken place [or for this positive situation to be the norm]? 4) On balance, what would be the cost/benefit to the business if the suggested steps were taken? [The specific points are simply illustrative. You are the best one to decide on a format for your notes -- or not have a format at all.] Hopefully, at the end of this retail experience you will have have an independent understanding of a very important aspect of business...applicable in a far wider context than simply in retail. Hey! maybe you can write a book ... Though I kid, that's the way many such books are born. People don't like what they see in a particular field; they learn from their experiences, organize their knowledge into a book, and become the latest guru on the block. ["The Customer is Always Wrong" - by Red Farmer]

There are many couples who would love to adopt a child from an unwanted pregnancy that (for whatever reason) could not be terminated.

I like to think of the analogy of sensations: I value my ability to smell all the dirty smells in the world? I value my ability to see all the filth. I value my ability to taste yucky stuff . These are all useful abilities. I'd rather smell roses than garbage. You could say, I value the smell of roses, not the smell of garbage. Is it possible that I can smell only roses and never smell garbage? (Perhaps it is, if I were to be surrounded by garbage all the time that I begin to "shut it out".) Even if it possible, is it desirable -- consider the case of people who can feel no pain in certain parts of their body, and consequently are less aware of reality. Emotions, like sensations, are vital tools of survival.