Dr. Radiaki

Canada remains unaffected, so I shall continue to by Absolut, comfortable in the knowledge that I will remain unconquered by leftist Mexicans.

I'm going to agree with DragonMaci here. This sort of trading potentiality for actuality is, as far as I understand, something frowned upon by objectivist ethics. The following comes from a piece about abortion, but I think it applies here: "To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable …"[1] You are trading the actual benefits of a close friend that brings your life value(A value you seem to argue exists explicitly in the women you describe, but whom you avoid because of your stated reasoning), with the potentiality, romantic ruin in your current relationship, a potentiality that can be avoided through rational thought. You also seem to argue that man is not rational animal, that you could not, despite your best efforts, make the correct decision, that is, not to act in a way that is destructive to a more valuable relationship in a less valuable one. I'm also confused about your term soulmate. Rand argues that their is, ultimately, one person who is the best possible value to you, and you to her. But you imply that their is more than one 'soulmate' for any given person, which would imply a divergence from the Randian ideal. How can a person have more than one ideal match? --- [1] "A Last Survey," The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3.

Certainly. And I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say, LOOOOOOOOONG HORNS! Wooo! <.<

I find it very difficult to conceive of a situation where a moral judgment in a rape situation would fall on the negative, but I concede that such is possible, and preferable to over-simplification.

Your story has value, I think, which is something to consider if you are worried about exchange and avoiding harmful altruism. The facts in your case are a wealth of information useful to people wanting to escape addiction, as well as others who may encounter it.

As a Canadian, I'm not very familar with U.S immigration law. What is the official justification for restricting the number of visas to individuals that MUST have a bachelors or similar degree in their given field? I simply cannot understand how it makes sense to limit the number of talented individuals that may enter a country, especially if such visas expire after a limited time in any case.

True, and I don't think anyone here would argue that any actions outside of immediately life threatening situations shouldn't be judged on moral grounds. However, what I think is most frustrating is an inequality with how such moral judgments are made. Women are responsible for the situations they find themselves in to a greater degree than men. A seemingly friendly guy offers you a ride home? Accept, and you are putting yourself at risk to be raped. Tut tut, perhaps you should have thought more carefully about how you dressed and who you talked to. Now imagine a similar situation, applied to a man. New friend offers you a ride home? The chances of rape are astronomically small. However, the chances of robbery and/or assault are not. In this situation would we see sanctimonious articles urging men to drink less at parties and be paranoid about every chance encounter with a stranger ? No, we would not. In fact, it is very likely that such a man would not be blamed at all, rather such activities would most likely be attributed to chance. Moral condemnation in these sorts of situation seems to inevitably come down harder on women, especially if they weren't careful to wear their iron plated chastity suits and drink non-alcoholic champagne. This seems to me an untenable inequality.

Why do you think that?

The problem being that too often these 'compromising positions' are used to excuse subjective, judgmental attacks on rape victims. Was she "asking for it," or did she "dress like a slut" or other such nonsense? No is no. Frankly, I think it rather sad that women are told that they create their own victimization by rights violators. Rape is, simply, a fundamental violation of essential freedoms. Nobody should be blamed for the immoral actions which others undertake against them, regardless of circumstance. I dress nicely and carry a wallet. Was I 'asking for it' when I got mugged? Hardly. I paid attention in class and was socially reserved in high school. Was I 'asking for it' when other students beat and belittled me? No. All rapists are vile, worthless sacks of crap whom I would gladly kick out the airlock. Obviously, this is not a dictatorship of Dr. Radiaki, or a more well funded space program would surely exist.

As an aside, I know that I find it useful to find a critique on any given subject so I can put any claims to the test with my own research and compare them to the arguments made by proponents.

One of those 185,000 was mine.

Canadian money, it makes my heart swell with pride.

Jason Isaacs as Galt, I think. http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1647220736/nm0005042 His role in the Harry Potter movies show he can play the evil confidence thing to a tee, so we just need to remove the evil bit.

I'd be interested in your opinion of Radical Honesty, if you have read it.

I would tend to advocate the opposite. Anything, no idea, no matter how opposed you are to it, should simply be ignored. Objective, critical analysis is always preferable to ad homenim attacks, no matter the target.

I failed to mention in my last post, but it seems relevant, sand is very good at jamming delicate, close-fitting, machined parts. Should the Iraqi policemen ever encounter sand, they may regret their choice of weapon.

Even the guns themselves are stupid. M-16's, while accurate, are notoriously jam-happy, fragile and difficult to maintain in all but ideal conditions. The AK-47, on the other hand, makes a much better choice. Almost mythically robust(stories about them being buried, dug up a month later then fired immediately are probably not exaggerated), almost as cheap as they are common not to mention simple to maintain, repair, and build. I fail to see why an inferior American weapon should be substituted.

And speaking of speeches, I'd like to see the d'Anconia speech included as well, though that seems even less likely that a fair shake for Galt.

I'd be careful in condemning the practice completely. Some women require such surgery to avoid violent retribution from their future husband, even if the hymen was not lost due to sexual contact(or never their in the first place). Simply put, this is a survival issue in some cases.

I would reccomend this: http://amazon.decenturl.com/baadasssss-cinema It has entertaining subject matter, and the overall message is quite in line with objectivist thought. The film argues that Blaxploitation films were never 'exploitive', they were creative vehicles made to generate profit. Actors were paid, new jobs were created, and new talents had a venue for output.. It also highlights Fred Williamson's individual drive and ability in creating 'Original Gangsters(1996)', which was meant to showcase the acting talent he saw in his contemporaries. His success in fundraising for the film is inspiring. Of course, they do let Quinten Tarintino speak for extended periods, which felt like nails running down a blackboard to me, but that's probably a matter of personal taste.

The comparisons we can draw here between Atlas Shrugged and the Microsoft case are more than a little frightening. Why is Microsoft being punished for its success? We have already seen the results of self-correcting capitalism at work. A sufficient number of educated people decided that they no longer wished to work with Microsoft products. Those people have created a variety of Linux distributions, many of which are completely free. Also, Apple only continues to build market share with its alternative, user-friendly OS, driven by the success of an innovative product, the iPod. Speaking of which, why hasn't the EU sued Apple yet? The iPod clearly dominates the market. They are hurting the little guys, Sony, Creative, and others. They must be punished!

True enough, but 2000 men farming 2000 acres will produce more than one man farming 1000 acres. Farming, as an industry, is much more attractive when there are few or no alternatives for employment.

We should also not forget the significant subsidies the American government pays to its farmers, especially in the cotton and sugar industries(two crops that have proven successful in parts of Africa), which effectively keeps all African goods of that nature out of the market. In fact, all farming subsidies are essentially harmful to developing nations as those states have huge human capacity, but little else. The small or non-existent professional class in African nations, coupled with poor systems of education means that the industrialization India and China have enjoyed is almost impossible. The nations of Africa are then left to find another profitable export. What can a country full of cheap labour produce more efficiently than their more industrialized neighbours? Food or cash crops. Proper farming techniques and a huge workforce with no better options can produce these things at a far cheaper rate than anyone in an industrialized nation. Or they could, if foreign governments did not provide massive subsidies to their farmers. We see these sorts of subsidies across the G8 nations, Canada's wheat, Japan's rice, the aforementioned cotton and sugar in the United States. We would also do well to remember that those government subsidies are paid from your taxes, in effect, you are paying to keep Africa poor. Free trade will never be free until the governments of the first world stop propping up inefficient industries.

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged, and the photographs of Kevin Scanlon are a remarkably good fit for some of the images evoked by the prose. Steel, coal, and of course, the railroad. A very talented photographer, in any case.

But you don't actually support the exploitation of government restrictions on business to benefit the government itself, do you?