Tom Rexton

You have to keep in mind that such buildings are far more costly. Complying with government regulations costs hundreds of billions of dollars per year; the only reason it doesn't instantly destroy the US economy (along with many other highly regulated EU economies) is that we are rich enough to afford such high costs without major deprivation (relatively speaking). The case is radically different in impoverished countries like Sri Lanka, India and Indonesia, where wealth is scarce and must be used to meet the most pressing needs--among the least of which are strong buildings because that area of the world is rarely hit but such natural disasters. Tenancy would cost too high for most people there, whose income are far too low to afford such high-standard housing. The only way these people can radically increase their ability to deal with such natural disasters is to industrialize, and thereby accumulate the capital needed to implement high-tech instruments to detect imminent natural disasters, build high-standard buildings and infrastructure to withstand them, and establish efficient emergency-relief response systems to deal with them.

So they can bloat the UN coffers to funnel more money into the hands of their fellow dictators like Saddam, thereby keeping them in power and perpetuating the Hell in which their people live (for which they then blame America). After all, the US provides 25% of all UN funds--25%, for a country that is only ONE of HUNDREDS that make up the UN. We're not even talking about private charitable donations Americans make at home and all over the world--which is a hell of a lot of more per capita than those Western Europeans who call Americans "stingy".

Have you ever read ATLAS SHRUGGED and/or THE FOUNTAINHEAD?

When I heard Peikoff pronounce the name in his radio show, it sounded just like the word "ran" (past tense of "run") with a "d" at the end. Go to aynrand.org or peikoff.com for some sound clips from the radio show (I'm not sure if it's still there, though).

Like most of us, you'll probably need to read it at least TWICE and SLOWLY to grasp it. There's really no way of taking it all in quickly and efficiently. Also, read the index that comes with the second edition.

You're equivocating with "rational" in the definition "rational animal". All men are, by definition, rational animals. All have the faculty reason; otherwise, they would not be men. Quote from ITOE: "("Rational", in this context, does not mean "acting invariably in accordance with reason"; it means "possessing the faculty of reason"...)" Some men's faculty of reason may be underdeveloped, still developing, or even permanently impaired (mentally retarded), but they are nevertheless RATIONAL ANIMALS. And yes, ALL horses share certain characteristics; else, how could we possibly form the concept "horse"? I suggest you read ITOE, especially the chapter on DEFINITIONS.

That is a snide insinuation--implying that we are somehow evading historical truths because we are "uncomfortable" with them. We are not "uncomfortable" with the facts presented by Zinn or any others like him. We simply consider their methodology to be invalid and the motive behind the methodology to be (allegedly) sinister.

It's quite true. There's no denying the incredible regulatory burdens businessmen and property owners face in this country relative to some Asian nations such as Hong Kong. Compared to them, our environmental regulations, consumer safety laws and other "safety" standard laws, zoning laws, land-use laws, emminent domain laws and all other laws government the use and disposal of private property makes our government a more persistent violator of property rights. Also, their tax systems are far simpler and less punitive of the most productive: they have very low-flat income and corporate tax rates. It's not entirely unbelievable that we are approaching the "social market" model Western Europe has trapped itself in for a while now. Britain is actually among the best of the Europeans when it comes to regulatory burden, both for businessmen and wage earners. Did you know that Thatcher repealed the minimum wage law in Britain, and in the consequent decades Britain had one of the best performance in the labor market relative to Europe (full employment and rising real wages)? Of course, Blair and his party restored the minimum wage recently.

You're right. HONG KONG is ranked #1 because of its very low, flat-tax rate, extremely light regulatory burden and very open foreign trade policies compared to the high "progessive" corporate and income taxes, very heavy regulatory burden and protectionist policy of the US for quite a while now. The HK government is more respectful of private property rights. It's a shame the US has fallen behind several nations in this important respect, especially considering what it was founded on and used to be--the first among nations when it came to protecting individual rights.

Many names in English have Biblical origins. Must I change my first name if it is Mathew, David, Paul, John, Adam, Isaac, Jacob, etc...? Or if a girl, Rebecca, Eve, Mary, etc...?

and I object to Sunday because it's named after the Sun God! and I object to Tuesday because it's named after the Tiw, the god of War! and I object to Wednesday because it's named after Woden, the god of Wisdom! and I object to the Friday because it's named after Frigg, the godess of love! and I object to Saturday because it's named after Saturn, the Roman god of Weather! My point? Let's let Christmas Day be Christmas Day. Like Betsy said, who cares what the Christians do?

Great rebuttal. That is the best logical refutation of any well-formed argument I've ever read! [sarcasm, if you didn't get it ]

So we shouldn't attack the terrorists at all, but placate them? for attacking them and eliminating as many of them as possible would certainly anger those who were not attacked and eliminated and would lead them to do more terrorist acts. Right?

You know how "individualism" is popularly understood. It's understood not as independence of mind/thought as held by Objectivism, but independence from almost anything, including people. Relationships are thought to be "anti-indivudalistic" or "collectivist" because it involves a formal relationship/union between two individuals. At the same time, wearing certain styles that are totally opposite of the popular trends for the sake of being different is considered "individualistic".

SHOCK What a surprise! Are these not the same people who agree, more or less, with the Islamofascists that America is "the Great Satan"?

It's somewhat difficult to draw the line exactly when rights violations are "ocassional" and when they are persistent and systematic. Even the rule given by Ayn Rand, which, I believe, is 1. One party rule 2. Censorship 3. Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is difficult to apply. Must the one party be explicitly one party? The Democrats and the Republicans are identical fundamentally, differing only in the details. As for censorship, we have the Federal Communications Comission (FCC). Only number 3, as far as I know, has not been implemented.

No, it was not for his impertinence. He had the potential to be a hero, but he didn't use his mind for productive purposes--instead wanting desperately to eliminate any exceptionally talented individuals. Just because he was an inventive genius does not mean he should have been the hero of the movie--remember DR. STADLER in ATLAS SHRUGGED? NO, you're presenting a false dichotomy. It's NOT a choice between the self-made innovator (Syndrome) and heros with innate powers (The Incredibles). Again, Syndrome is far more akin to Dr. Stadler than John Galt.

So let me get this straigth. Is this how you deduce that atheism implies a meaningless life? Premise A: According atheism, life does not last forever. Premise B: Any thing that does not last forever is meaningless. Conclusion: Therefore, according to atheism, life is meaningless. Premise A is false. Atheism does not assert that life does not last forever. In fact, there are atheistic mystical philosophies that postulate immortality. Objectivism, in particular, takes no position on whether life lasts forever--only that LIFE IS CONDITIONAL. That is, its survival depends upon certain courses of action required by the nature of a particular living being. Someone (whose name I unfortunately have forgotten) aptly named this the "Conditionality Thesis", and you can find it in John Galt's speech starting on page 926 of latest mass paperback edition, in the paragraph beginning with the sentences "There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence--and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional; the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action..." As far as I know, there's nothing in reason nor in the life sciences that precludes the possibility of altering an organism's nature such that it can live indefinitely given the requisite conditions. Premise B is also false, not to mention absurd. I'd like to know how you ever came to such a conclusion.

You should have been more careful in your choice of words then, for they implied something contrary to "[full] aware[ness] and understand[ing] that great athletes are heroes":

Better to have simply nuked Red China and Soviet Russia. That way thousands, if not millions, of US soldiers' lives would have been spared. No matter how large and powerful our army may have been, we still would have encountered brutal resistance and prolonged hardship. Just look at how Napoleon's and Hitler's campaign went when they tried to invade Russia. China, by the mere size of its army, would have also made a difficult and obstinate resistance, and no doubt would've killed thousands if not millions of US soldiers lives as well.

That metaphor made my day! We have to admit, though, the foreign policy of the US goverment in the Middle East has been both of feckless appeasement and invidious aid/support to certain dictatorial regimes that no doubt intensifies--but not causes--hatred. However, just watching and listening to the call of radical Muslim leaders indicate that they are grievous not of American interventionist policies in particular, but by the existence of America in general. That's why you hear the chant : "Death to America"--not the more specific "Death to Bush". Radical Muslim leaders call America "The Great Satan". I remember hearing one them quoted saying "America has been a crime for last 215 years ever since George Washington sat on his throne". It's so obvious from those that the hatred is aimed at America--NOT just American foreign policy. Some might wonder then, why not other countries whose cultures are similar? Because America is the symbol. The terrorists could have probably killed more by targeting other buildings or populated areas, but it's obvious why they chose the WTC and the Pentagon when you look at the symbolic significance of those buildings. Also, from the recent murder of Van Gogh in the Netherlands (one of THE models of appeasement foreign policy), it's obvious the hatred and terrorism is directed against the West, and in particular America--the epitome of the West.

Actually, it is evident in many economic articles from several economic websites and magazines that the deficits are major concerns for the US economy (not to mention the world economy). The problem is that economists have been "crying wolf" for years that the USD will fall and thereby cause a global depression, the worst of which will be suffered by Americans. It hasn't happened yet. The USD has so far been GRADUALLY devaluating, not freefalling as prophesied. Of course, it is most likely that some time in the near future, there will be a panic that will cause the USD to devaluate rapidly, leading to the worst US financial disaster since the Great Depression. What you shold be worried about, however, is not so much your living standards, but how the government will react.

I'm no sportsfan myself, but your sweeping generalization that basketball players are nothing more than "a bunch of dummies run[ning] around" is unjustified and has no basis. Sports proper does offer a rational value to the players as well as the spectators.

Do you mean as Secretary of Defense?

Well, you all have probably heard about Powell's resignation. But did you hear about Bush's intent to nomiate Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State? What do you guys think this nomination indicates? I'm not too familiar with Rice, but being the National Security Adviser, she probably had a lot of input into President Bush's (purported) stand on the "axis of evil".