brian0918

Chinese Olympics: Slavery for the glory of sport. A more freedom-loving world would ban such countries from competing. And if you consider being pumped with testosterone or steroids from a young age "doping", then it's unlikely you'll find a single Olympian representing China who hasn't been doped at some time in his/her past.

So in perspective, 10k non-suicide gun deaths each year, compared to: 17k due to drug abuse; 20k due to STDs; 35-45k due to car accidents; 50k-100k due to medical errors in hospitals; 55k due to toxins, particulates and radon; 75k due to infectious diseases; 85k due to alcohol; 110+k due to obesity and heart disease; 400+k due to tobacco use.

Apparently, taxpayers may have funded this guy's rampage. Now we know where he got all that money from.

Your statement may seem obvious, but is it accurate? If more law-abiding citizens are armed, what effect (if any) does that have on the decisions of those violent offenders who have no interest in following the law?

Since Cinemark has taken it upon themselves to disarm their customers, please consider boycotting their business. At the very least, send them a message that their policy only harms their customers.

His example had two people using the same gun, and presumably not knowing about the stray bullet until much later.

If it's clear that they were shooting in the direction and within the range of the neighbor's house - which it must be, since they can't determine who shot the lethal bullet -, then they both were negligent and just as likely to be responsible for the neighbor's death. I am not familiar with the legal terms but I would expect it should be negligent homicide or manslaughter, maybe.

Ahh yes. It's been a few years. I guess it's time to reread it.

I didn't see the first one and I don't intend to see this one either.

The thief, as the initiator of force, is to blame for the outcome of the incident of rights violation. In a system where everyone can impact the ability to violate the rights of others, there are degrees of blame depending on the context. Whereas the thief should be harshly punished for his action, ignorant voters should not - instead, one might treat them with contempt, or even see the opportunity to educate them.

I guessed he was a real person, but with so many characters already introduced, I wouldn't have been surprised if his future role was unrelated to the motor. The thing I didn't see coming was that the workman talking to Rearden was Galt.

Reason.tv finds some slight silver linings in this horrible decision:

Thank the "compassionate conservative" John Roberts (nominated by GWB) for casting the deciding vote in favor, as well as Elena Kagan for opting not to recuse herself.

People have already talked about asking Peikoff during the OCON Q&A.

I'm always reminded of the Cartesian theory of mind when a movie/show depicts a robot's first-person perspective having a heads-up display (HUD) - now why would a truly conscious robot need an internal display of the information that it directly measures with its sensory devices? [media=] The same reason a robot doesn't need a heads-up display is the reason a human does not need a homunculus to watch such a display.

Well said. This is probably the best method for influencing change in society.

Based on the comments, it may have only been on there for a day or two.

It shows up that way for me too, and I don't use hulu on this computer at all.

For some ideas on why the market has historically picked gold as money, see this chemist: http://www.npr.org/b...um-einsteinium? and in general what factors make something money, and why the market still considers gold money, see Keith Weiner's recent lecture (from 6:00 to 12:30): [media=]

Objectivist Keith Weiner (who is getting his finance PhD I believe) also wrote a piece explaining why FRB is not fraud. He also describes what he believes is an actual fraud perpetrated by banks: duration mismatch, which is borrowing short to lend long. It is taking money that a depositor would like to put into a time deposit of 1 year and lending it on a 10 year loan. I'm not sure I agree with him that it is fraud, assuming that the practice is clearly stated in the contract signed by all parties, but here is his explanation, in any case: http://dailycapitali...the-real-story/

Find a manager, give them cash, or your phone number so they can call you and process your credit card later. It may not be illegal in such situations, but I would consider it an example of taking the unearned, and thus immoral.

It seems from the comments section that people are not convinced by the article. So maybe there is still a slight bit of hope.

Reading the comments section reminds me why fans of Rand try to avoid the Objectivist movement.

But what if the parents are getting bad advice on what constitutes a "healthy lifestyle" from the FDA, USDA, NIH, etc?

Buechner has a ton of articles on his website that formed the basis of his book, including a multi-part series on redefining the law of supply and demand: http://objectiveeconomics.net/