JMartins
-
Posts
172 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JMartins
-
-
Let's just fight to make a "capitalist space race" possible -- then the rest will fall into place.
-
I recently read through "Philosophy: Who Needs It?", where Rand writes the following:
At present, even so dismal a figure as President Nixon is a hopeful sign – presisely because he is so dismal. If any other country were in as desperately precarious a state of confusion as ours, a dozen flamboyant Führers would have sprung up overnight to take it over.If we draw parallels between what she wrote and our current situation, we can probably agree that while John McCain is a "dismal figure" such as Richard Nixon was, Barack Obama might be the first in a long line of "flamboyant Führers". The more I learn about him, the more appropriate that exact title sounds.
The next President in power will most likely get to appoint three-four young Supreme Court Justices however, meaning that if McCain and Palin wins, they will put an end to both abortion and stem-cell research for a very long time to come.
-
I don't think there is a decent answer given what we know. Suppose for example you wanted to mine coal. I would not recommend Washington state, since there is not much coal there. Now suppose you want to be a cattle rancher. I would not recommend Rhode Island since it's not the best for big cattle herds. And please don't try reindeer herding in any state other than Alaska. It would be best to look at what specifically you want to do, to what extent one place is better than another. You might not care about labor laws (forced unionism is variable at the state level) if you're not planning on hiring a big bunch of laborers.
Assume that the type of businesses you would start would not be dependent on natural resources. The first might, for example, be a software development business, with no more than 10-15 employees.
-
Assume that you're a well-educated European fresh out of college, that you're an aspiring entrepreneur, that you're a student of Objectivism, and that you're prepared to venture to the United States to make your own fortune. You have no close friends or family there, and will choose which state to establish yourself in based on the individual freedom, political situation and future prospects of the state. As you plan on pursuing entrepreneurial projects, you're mainly concerned with being able to do so with the least possible interference by the government. Avoiding the "Bible belt" would be a secondary priority.
Which state would you choose, and why?
-
The Obama National Anthem:
The Lyrics:
All hail the MessiahObama, Obama
The path to the new socialist motherland
Our savior, our savior
Obama, Obama
The leader more famous than Lindsay Lohan
Bow down and praise the One
Give him your money and your guns
Give us a country
That makes your wife proud
Lord Barry heal the bitter ones
White and clinging to faith and to guns
Hope for the change of the hope of the change!
-
Its interesting to note that the Supreme Court Justice that Obama said he would not have hired, Clarence Thomas, is an advocate of Objectivism. While he's not an Objectivist himself (he's a Catholic, and pro-life), he's been encouraging his associates to read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and writes warmly about Ayn Rand in his biography. Among other things, he's said: "I tend to really be partial to Ayn Rand, and to the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged."
-
I recommend chapter 17, "What Can One Do?", in Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It?". Knowing that reality is our ally also helps -- the only things that separate us from the world that we seek are social constructs that can be dismantled in time.
-
Zimmer has also done the soundtrack for The Rock and Crimson Tide. He has the ability to take the emotions associated with heroic vulnerability and great moral conviction and translate them into music better than anyone I've heard. I can't say enough about his music.
I couldn't agree more. Do anyone have recommendations for music smiliar to the themes to the Rock and Crimson Tide?
These are some favourites of mine that might fit the bill:
Hans Zimmer's "the Battle" (Gladiator soundtrack)
Steve Jablonsky's "Arrival to Earth" (Transformers soundtrack)
Harry Gregson's "Enemy of the State" (Enemy of the State soundtrack)
Ramin Djawadi's "Driving with the Top Down" (Iron Man soundtrack)
-
I've started promoting Objectivism on one of the conservative messageboards, and would appreciate some assistance in formulating a convincing response to an individual who I believe may make a good student of Objectivism. He's been studying numerous philosophies, though is largely unfamiliar with Objectivism. I don't have a good enough grasp on the epistemology to make a convincing enough response to him yet, and I certainly don't want to make a flawed one. I'd appreciate any assistance on this one.
His post:
How does objectivism deal with scientific concepts of events or objects that by their very nature cannot be observed or measured? Also does objectivism compensate for issues concerning the potential inaccuracy of the five senses or is it assumed that the senses and the external data that they gather in for intellect and reason to process are always correct? As you can imagine I don't accept objectivism as a worthwhile philosophy for my life because it excludes too many avenues of discovery. It puts to many limits on lines of though and inquiry and when taking to its fullest potential it seems to be a child of nihilism something akin to atheistic existentialism. I may have misconceptions or a misunderstanding of the philosophy because I haven't delved deeply in to it but much of what I read I couldn't agree with. -
Thank you very much, that's one of the most memorable and inspiring scenes to me. Rearden is my favourite character, and the way he's described through John Galt is simply amazing. If I could choose to have one scene from Atlas Shrugged illustrated in romantic art, that would be the one I'd go with.
-
I've been trying to locate the passage from Atlas Shrugged where John Galt describes his first glance of Hank Rearden to Dagny Taggart. He describes Rearden walking out of a factory along with some of his business partners. The story is told while Galt and Dagny are down in the tunnels beneath the concourse of Taggart Transcontinental. Do any of you remember which chapter this is from? I've been unable to locate it (obviously, its time to reread Atlas Shrugged).
-
I found this entry on "bipolar bears" pretty humorous.
-
A very openly homosexual friend of mine completed the five year long undergraduate program at the Objectivist Academic Center as #1 in the class this summer. He's been accepted into the graduate program. Clearly the staff at ARI -- at least those lecturing at OAC -- are not adverse to openly homosexual Objectivists.
-
Ciaran Hinds has the perfect "Objectivist appearance" if you ask me. He's tall and gaunt, with prominent facial features, a very noble bearing and a commanding voice -- something that he has in common with the Objectivist characters described in Atlas Shrugged.
-
It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener.
-
This is the new official ad from the Bob Barr campaign:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxPrULE6dUU
It includes about 25 seconds of footage from an interview with Ayn Rand (followed, of course, by Ron Paul).
-
Amy Acker is the most stunningly gorgeous woman that I am aware of. She's From Dallas Texas, and is probably best known for her role as Winifred Burke in the TV-series Angel.
-
I'll stop you right there. Certainly, given your lack of hard evidence, you'd I'm sure be willing to back off on that "no one can contest..." part. Your inability to believe that his campaign would have produced better results (than what, I'm not exactly sure yet) does not in fact make such possiblities so.
Yes, point taken. While I maintain my conviction that a political campaign can be educational, it wasn't particularly wise to start the debate by saying that it could not be contested. As to the last part, I'm arguing that Paul's presidential campaign has yielded a far greater educational success from a libertarian standpoint, than what he would have accomplished by founding yet another libertarian non-profit organization. Already existing libertarian organizations laid the groundworks that made his presidential campaign so tremendously successful from a libertarian standpoint however.
Mm, yeah, that is probably true. I think that's due to the nature of libertarian ideology, which depends on millimeter-deep miles-wide intellectual seed-sewing.Yes, that's an entirely valid point. It concerns me that Objectivism may only appeal to the new intellectuals, and that people with average or less than average faculties will always turn to libertarianism when exposed to the ideas of Ayn Rand.
I can't say that I'm persuaded that he actually did anything that caused people to know anything new, something that they didn't already know. There's no question that he did have considerable success in rallying people, but that's not the same as educating. Are you arguing that he made some substantial contribution in the realm of actual education? Not just organising.The reason why so many people initially rallied to him was because they were inspired by his performance in the presidential debates -- YouTube videos of his performances circulated all over the Internet, and inspired thousands all around the world. I could go into depth about how people react when they are being exposed to new ideas by someone that they find inspiring, but I believe you're already aware. Consider how people react to Galt's speech -- they get inspired, and they want to learn more. This is the reason why Paul's new book remained the #1 bestseller for numerous weeks. His presidential campaign reached thousands of people which he would otherwise not have reached, and it inspired them to purchase his book in order to learn more about his ideas.
The idea of an Objectivist partaking in prime-time presidential debates all across the nation intrigues me to no end. In addition to the tens of thousands he would inspire, he would also be in a position to publicly broadcast the fact that Objectivism and Libertarianism are not the same, and not compatible. I do however agree that an Objectivist Party is not something to pursue, and would again like to clarify that an Objectivist presidential candidate would only be feasible in the future, assuming we succeed in laying the groundworks for it by making a cultural change.
-
I also can contest this claim. First, the evidence does not indicate that he has "educated the masses" in any philosophical grasp of the nature of liberty or mankind. He has more name-recognition than Harry Browne, but name-recognition is not the same as education in philosophy. Indeed, I contend just based on listening to a number of Paul videos that he has personally done more harm to creating the kind of intellectual change necessary to spread Objectivism. Paul is a certifiable crackpot who is, to get technical, clueless. Hospers was credible although wrong; Paul is like the Dennis Kucinich of the freedom movement.
It's also clear that he would be no good as a college professor in an attempt to spread a foundation of reason which leads to a free society. Perhaps he might have been an okay fund-raiser working behind the scenes to support real Objectivist education. The kinds of cultural changes required to elect an Objectivist president won't come by the mindless mass spreading of a handful of libertarian chants -- "Freedom, man! No taxes! Out of Iraq now! It's a revolution, brother!". The problem now is that there are thousands of his under-trained neophytes roaming the planet, waiting to be turned by the Dark Side. I think we would be better off if there weren't such a mess to clean up.
I agree with your assessment of Ron Paul -- he has certainly done more harm than good to the Objectivist movement. He has in many ways served as a rallying-point for some of the most horrible kind of people out there. My point remains that no matter his virtue, or lack thereof, he has, from the libertarian perspective, been more successful in spreading their ideology through his presidential campaign, than he would have been able to through forming yet another libertarian think tank/organization. He's gotten the libertarian message out there, to people whom it would otherwise never have reached, and has to some degree made a cultural change in the favor of libertarianism. As a result of his presidential campaign, his book became a best seller for several weeks, and educated people in his brand of philosophy, economics and foreign policy. His political campaign educated thousands -- that's the point I'm making in this thread. Objectively its a negative form of education, but that doesn't change the fact that his presidential campaign has been tremendously successful in educating people in his brand of philosophy. I see no reason why a future Objectivist presidential campaign cannot achieve the same kind of massive cultural movement assuming the proper groundwork has been laid by Objectivist thinkers.
-
Yep. It would be much better if they created a Capitalist party.
The Liberal Capitalist Party:
http://www.liberalcapitalist.com/
As the FAQ says though: "The Liberal Capitalist Party is currently in its conception phase, making Liberalcapitalist.com a "virtual" a political party for the time being."
-
OK, I'll contest it. What's your evidence for this?
As the prospect of Ron Paul starting a libertarian organization instead of launching his presidential campaign is purely hypothetical I don't have any hard evidence. After having observed the tremendous effects of his presidential campaign however, I find it exceedingly hard to believe that it would have produced any better results. The idea of him raising well over thirty million dollars, participating in prime-time debates on a regular basis, generally getting his message out there as well as he has, and being on "everyones" lips, as a result of founding yet another libertarian organization, is highly unlikely -- especially since there's already numerous libertarian organizations out there that have been repeating the same message over and over for many years without yielding any significant results, other than laying the groundworks for Paul's presidential campaign (just as ARI may be laying the groundwork for an Objectivist's presidential campaign in the future). It was mainly the early presidential debates that he participated in which made people so enthusiatic about him, and it was the these people who actively spread his message across the internet at such an alarming rate, which in turn generated all the millions in donations that allowed him to broadcast political/ideological ads in all states. The driving force was always the hope that he would win the presidential nomination -- that's what fueled his supporters to such an extreme degree, and what brough libertarianism into the political spotlight. There's no reason why the same won't work for Objectivism in the future (albeit in a more dignified manner).
-
This is regarding something that Ayn Rand said in the Q&A session from lecture 12 of “Philosophy of Objectivism” by Leonard Peikoff, given in 1976.
"Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A", by Robert Mayhew:
Q: Is it not time for an Objectivist politician?AR: It certainly is not. The whom would he speak? One cannot run an educational campaign and a political campaign simultaneously. In fifty years, it might be time for an Objectivist politician; but by the time it’s possible, he practically wouldn’t be necessary. The country’s public opinion would continue in the direction of freedom and reason. Therefore, Objectivists should go to the classroom, and correct the situation there.
I cannot say that I agree with her on that particular statement (in bold). Consider Ron Paul's presidential campaign -- however flawed it may be, you cannot contest that he has been able to educate the masses in the so-called "philosophy of liberty" to a far greater extent that he would have been able to had he started an academic institution or served as a college professor instead. One might argue that the many millions of dollars that he raised would, from his perspective, have been more efficiently spent by influencing academia, such as the ARI is doing now, instead of further promoting his presidential campaign. The arguement falls on the fact that he would never have been able to raise the many millions in the first place, nor kept raising them, had he not launched his presidential campaign and kept promoting it for as long as he did. Another libertarian institute would simply not have generated as much hype. In doing what he did, he has established himself as the first and foremost spokesman for capitalism in media, he is being invited to numerous talk shows and news broadcasts, and recieves the credit for being "right" by many economists, as a result of the continually failing U.S. economy and the recent Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac scandal. He's spreading his flawed message of libertarianism like wildfire.
Even Ayn Rand could not have predicted the political influence of the Internet -- I believe that this is the main factor that proves this particular statement of hers wrong.
For the record; I fully agree with ARI's current course of action. Unlike the rather widespread influence of libertarianism, Objectivism is not yet influential enough to generate the kind of hype that Ron Paul's campaign has through a presidential campaign. With the success of his campaign in mind though, the prospect of an Objectivist politician running on a GOP platform sometime in the future -- perhaps 30-40 years from now, sounds very potent to me, assuming that we've managed to bring about sufficient cultural change by then.
-
I think Rand wrote something about an Objectivist political party; she was not supportive of it. I can't find a quote though. A cookie for whoever does find it.
"Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A", by Robert Mayhew:
Q: Is it not time for an Objectivist politician?AR: It certainly is not. The whom would he speak? One cannot run an educational campaign and a political campaign simultaneously. In fifty years, it might be time for an Objectivist politician; but by the time it’s possible, he practically wouldn’t be necessary. The country’s public opinion would continue in the direction of freedom and reason. Therefore, Objectivists should go to the classroom, and correct the situation there.
-
The founder is a Libertarian Ron Paul supporter. He writes:
I was the Political Consultant and New York Coordinator of the Paul For President Coalition and I now run 4 former Ron Paul Meetup Groups in the NYC Metro Area.So that is my position. I supported Ron Paul all the way!
Its a pity that ARI didn't register the official-sounding name "the Objectivist Party" for themselves, either for future use, or at the very least to keep it from being abused by Libertarians.
Oh, Ron Paul!
in US Elections 2004/2008/2012/2016
Posted
Source: http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/...berty-movement/
It'll be interesting to see if Paul accepts.