Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JJJJ

  1. But once again: Who is it that is going to "slip in" these plans, when there really is no one who is supporting those plans(communism, fascism or even consistant collectivism). This is THE key difference with pre-nazi Germany and todays west. In the past, you actually had fascists and communist movements, you didnt have the "lets not judge" collectivists that we have today. So once again, how are totalitarians going to take over, when there really are no such groups with any sort of influence?
  2. But the one thing lacking is the support for totalitarian ideas. What we have is a lack of support of any ideas, and the denouncement of ideas as such. Yes, this would leave the door open for all kinds of totalitarianism, but there are really no such movements with any support in the west. Could you please break down the parallels, and give the real world examples of the pre-nazi era vs. todays west, so i can better know what you actually see that is so ominous.
  3. Youre creating straw men here. Sure, consistant multiculturalism and enviromentalism is that, but that is not what the vast majority of people are, hence, why i called them a mix between individualism and collectivism. I have a lot of friends who are fairly rational, and live productive lives, who at the same time think that its their duty to help those in most need, that the rich should be taxed more than the poor and that we should keep our compulsory military/civil service for all finnish men and that its not really our place to say whether western life is better than tribal africa. We all know people like this. To compare them with marxists and fascists of the early 1900's is a total joke. This has more to do with sanctioning the mixed premises, and not with my actual point. Yes, if you refuse judgement on a person that has mixed premises, the bad premises will eventually win. But its not the case here. Im not sanctioning the bad, im simply making the distinction between extremely bad people(communists, fascists) and the mixed people that make up most of the western people nowadays. We all have friends that have collectivist traits, but im not going to compare them with Hitler just because they "kind of" think taxes are good.
  4. old collectivism = the individual is unimportant. The nation/class/race/religion is mans highest cause. A much more consistant collectivism, where the collectivist both practice and preach their collectivism in a higher degree. Examples: nazis, communists, fascists new collectivism = pretty much subjectivism. The individual isnt per se unimportant, and the nation/class etc. isnt mans only cause. Instead its just "something in between", murky, grey, unprincipled and most importantly contradictory. A mix between individualism in some things, and collectivism in others. Examples: enviromentalists, social democrats, multiculturalists. Nothing, if you are "extreme" about something good. But its better to be a mix of good and bad(like todays collectivists), than to be extremely bad(like the collectivists of old). By making the continent more than 90-99% muslim, and by the good people turning a blind eye to them in the name of "tolerance". There are already some areas in Paris and in Swedish cities like Malmö, that are de facto under similar rule as muslim tyrannies in the middle east. Sure, they are officially french/swedish, but considering that the police doesnt dare to venture to those areas, they are more or less like small muslim "havens" within the borders of Sweden and France.
  5. The thing is that the US, and the welfare states here in Europe dont have communists, fascists, nationalists nor even socialists in the traditional sense that are at the center or even at the fringes of popular opinion that are waiting to take over once the current administrations changes. It is absurd to make this connection between pre-nazi Germany and the US/Europe. The old collectivism is very different from the modern, "progressive", collectivism. Also the economic times are very different. When poverty nowadays is "having to rent an apartment and take the bus", it used to be "having to live on the streets and beg", so the poor wont get behind extremism like they used to. But the main thing is, that the people we call collectivists and socialists nowadays, are not the people that used to take over the streets, start revolutions and advocate dictatorships back in the day. And there is no mainstream support for any sort of nazi, fascist or communist ideas, and there are no movements that are waiting in the shadows to take over. The real threat caused by the unprincipled ideas that people hold, is not that domestic communists will take over, but that the muslim fundamentalists will. America has been pretty safe from this, but at this rate Europe will not stay "free" for many decades. The lack of principles and subjectivism that are widespread leads to people with strong principles taking over, but those people will not be the communists or the fascists(because there really arent any), but the muslim fundamentalists.
  6. When I heard his speeches, I found nothing wrong with what he said, and that is something that is very rare when listening to politicians. So it was no surprise that i found this on the second page when googling ' "daniel hannan" "ayn rand" ': http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan...ho_is_john_galt So, not only is he one of the better conservatives, he might even be an O'ist or at least O'ist-leaning which is fine by me. He definitely used phrases that regular conservatives dont use, such as actually boiling it down to hurting the productive for the sake of the unproductive, and actually using laissez-faire capitalism in a sentence, without saying "obviously i dont support that" right after it.
  7. This is based on my experiences here in Finland, and my observations of media coverage from other western countries. Why is it that every time a person from the west says something positive about something that is unique in "western" culture, other westerners quickly silence him down with multicultural and relativist crap, but if it is done the other way around, this same westerner doesnt mind. If the non-westerner says something positive about something that is unique to that culture, this same multicultural westerner doesnt mind, and gets all riled up if another westerner tells that the non-westerner is wrong. And this isnt just about ideological and philosophical things, but about other more casual things as well, like sports, entertainment or cuisine. It seems as if the hierarchy of the world goes like this: If an englishman(2) thinks american football is boring, its ok, if an american(1) doesnt like soccer, he is stupid and ignorant. If a frenchman(3) doesnt like american/english culture, its ok, if an american(1) doesnt like french culture, he is insensitive. If an Algerian(4) thinks that french culture is bad, its ok, if a frenchman(3) thinks that algerian culture is bad, he is insensitive and arrogant. If someone from Singapore(4) thinks that tribal africans are bad, he is insensitive, if a tribal african(5) thinks that living in houses and not hunting your own food is bad, he isnt insensitive and just has a "unique worldview" that is no way better or worse than anyone elses. And i drew the line between groups 3 and 4 because this is where the line goes when deciding who's to blame if a person from one group doesnt feel comfortable living with people from another group. If an englishman(2) or frenchman(3) moves to america and doesnt like it, its not really anyones fault, and he just moves back. If an american(1) moves to England(2) or France(3) and doesnt fit in, the american may be a tad arrogant and insensitive, but its not that bad and he just moves back. But if a person from groups 4 or 5 moves to countries in groups 1,2 and 3 and doesnt fit in, it is the fault of people from groups 1,2 and 3, and instead of asking the person to move back to 4 or 5 if he doesnt like it, the 1,2 and 3's should instead ask "how can i change so that you will fit in better". Now, if someone from 1,2 or 3 moves to countries in 4 or 5, and doesnt fit in, it is not the fault of the people in 4 and 5, but instead the fault lies with the movers from 1,2 or 3 who didnt open their minds enough to cherish and respect the cultures of the country they moved to. In other words: If a non-westerner doesnt fit in in the west, its because westerners are xenophobes/racists/bigots, and if a westerner doesnt fit in in the non-west, its because westerners are xenophobes/racists/bigots. If someone is still with me at this point, i could tell you that i have come up with two possible reasons for this: a ) the multiculturalist westerners actually themselves know that the west is superior, but because just like taunting a disabled person is immoral, they confuse voluntary things(philosophy) with involuntary things(disability), and think that they shouldnt judge lesser cultures. or b ) the multiculturalist westerners actually just hate the west that much, and try to dishonestly "even the score" between cultures because they are so ashamed and dumbfounded that the philosophy they hate is actually working so well. Do you have a third explanation, especially for the non-philosophical things like food, sports etc, because i cant think of a reason...
  8. This is true, and something i've often said to my anti-american* friends. They will(should) miss it when its gone. Even though they will probably blame capitalism for it as well..... * anti-american in the ignorant "doesn't everyone in america eat burgers for lunch, live in trailers and beat up minorities" sense, not in the ideological "individualism is wrong, let's all sacrifice" sense
  9. Yes, the inevitable consequense of socialist policies is a socialist state. But Obama, just like the welfare statists over here(Finland), are not consistantly(not even close) socialists. Mixed policies and mixed ideas, leads to a mixed economy, and Obama is not a principled socialist, and more of a "have-it-both-ways" welfare statist. I cant speak for Obama, but the "middle way" welfare statists over here are not communists. The real danger in Obama, is not that he will take the US towards communism, but that he will push the US to become a european mess of an unprincipled "self-hating" welfare state.
  10. I don't really know which section this is suited the best, so I decided to add it here. I have been a pretty avid reader of this board, and generally like the philosophical discussions, but one thing has bothered me ever since i joined. Many posters here make astounding leaps and exaggerations when discussing politics, and especially left-wing politics in the west. I mean, maybe I dont understand sarcasm that well, but there seem to be a lot of posters that genuinly think that the US will become a dictatorship or a fullblown communist state with Obama in charge. It really reminds me of when leftists call everyone fascists, whether they are free market capitalists, god loving christian conservatives or actual fascists. Calling Obama a socialist is borderline ok, if we use socialist to describe the large "umbrella" that includes all leftist ideologies, but actually thinking that the US is on the road to dictatorship or communism, is an insult to actual victims of dictatorships and communism. Now dont get me wrong, im not like that one poster who for some reason loves Obama. I actually think Obama is going to be the worst president in US history, as he will lead the US towards european style welfare-statism, but that is as far as it will go. His dream is clearly that the US will be like Sweden, not that the US will be like the Soviet Union, and to make that leap is really counterproductive if you really want to oppose Obama. Even though both are vicious, there is a huge difference between communism and these mixed welfare states. There is 0% danger that Sweden, Finland or other welfare states will suddenly become dicatorships or communist states. Finland and Sweden are horrible enough on their own, that you dont need to(and shouldn't) try to equate dicatorships with welfare states. There are enough arguments to oppose the welfare states, and the arguments used should be related to reality, and not some perceived danger of the countries slipping into dictatorship. So let's call Obama what he is, let's call Sweden what it is, and not make fools of ourselves by making idiotic exaggerations. Obama is horrible as it is, and let's just focus on what he actually does, instead of creating straw-men. Obama is an altruist, a socialist/social democrat, a populist, a pragmatist and a collectivist, so lets just focus on these flaws without making up our own.
  11. I am somewhat of a dog-lover, and I always get somewhat emotional at movies when dogs or other "cute" animals get hurt/die. I never/rarely get emotional at movies when humans die/get hurt. Last night however, this went overboard, as i actually cried at the movie theatre when Marley the dog died in the movie Marley&Me. I didnt even like the movie, and thought it was a really boring piece, but when the dog got sick and had to be put down, tears were actually rolling down my face. It was somewhat embarrassing to leave the movie theatre.... When our family dog, who i really loved, died a couple of years ago i never even thought about crying, but for some reason i get really choked up when i see dogs dying in movies. I dont think I even cried that much when my father, who i was really close to, passed away, but a random average movie about a dog gets me all choked up? Anyone else have this same "syndrome"?
  12. JJJJ

    AIG Bonuses

    Its like asking whether a murderer that wasn't convicted of his crime should be allowed to get married with the judges daughter. The answer is "he should be in jail", not "Yes, of course he should, he is a free man" or "No, of course not, the judge already did him a favor - now he'd better obey him"
  13. Im currently reading a finnish textbook on Epistemology, and because the author seems to simply assume that intuitions and a priori knowledge exists without giving any sort of explanation, id like to know what kind of "proof" or explanations advocates of intuition and a priori knowledge usually give. Because for me it seems pretty unconceivable to follow the authors reasoning, if i cant understand his reasoning for the existence of a priori knowledge, as he makes no sense. Has any of you ever debated, or heard any explanations for what exactly a person knows, and what he is aware of before he has ever experienced anything. Often i hear about how logic or math is somehow distinct from empirically gathered knowledge, and that somehow math and logic can be understood without any experience of the real world?? How can a person know that 2+2=4, if he has never experienced anything, and therefore can not be aware of the existence of anything that there can be "two" of. How can a person know what more or less means, if he has never experienced anything where there are differing amounts of anything? Are there any attempts by rationalists and other apriorists to actually explain this, or do they all just do as the author of my textbook does, iow. assume that it exists? I really enjoy reading differing philosophical views, because it gives me some sort of joy when i can find the flaws in their reasoning, but this textbook doesnt even give any explanation, and thats why i thought that maybe some of you could help me out....
  14. No, but you forget the theistic argument about the creation of the universe. Not only is the theistic god someone who has the power to change existence, he is the power that made existence exist in the first place. And this is where the contradiction lies. Yes, there is nothing logically impossible in existing outside "our own limited horizon" and being able to rearrange existing physical matter in our "horizon" in a godlike fashion. If theists simply claimed that god has the power to affect our lives, then your rebuttal would be correct, but the idea of at least the abrahamic god, also holds within it the idea of the "ultimate creator" that created existence itself. And Dawkins argument where he branded his atheism as "level 6" atheism, is full of skepticism, and i dont know why any O'ist would call those strong arguments for anything. He goes on to say that we have to doubt absolutely everything, and that we can never be absolutely sure about anything. Of that follows that we should even doubt that we should doubt everything, but that is a topic the skepticists never want to adress. I read The God Delusion, and even though i didnt read it with all that much focus, his argument about probabilities and lack of evidence are the ones that stuck in my mind as his main argument for the lack of a god. And im a bit puzzled why you dont think there is a logical basis for atheism, because that is the most important one to me. I dont care THAT people are atheists, i care why they are atheists, and i dont see being an atheist without rational reasons any better than being a religious nut.
  15. Dawkins is not only horrible in philosophy, but has also been able to become the "champion of atheism" with probably the weakest arguments for atheism that one could imagine. The angle these "atheists" take is the one of "show me the evidence", without understanding that that question cant even logically be asked. It's not because of low probabilities or "lack of evidence" that one shouldnt believe in an ultimate creator, and instead one should understand that the idea of an ultimate creator is logically impossible. Its not that there is no proof for a god, it is that there can not be any proof for a god. All these idiotic Russel's teapots and flying spaghetti monsters are completely stupid, and totally beside the point. A teapot actually could physically be orbiting around Mars, and one could conceive a being made out of pasta or whatever the FSM is supposed to be, and these are the things that dont exist because there is no evidence, but the question of god has nothing to do with this. The whole idea that something could exists that existed before existence existed, and then created existence into existence, is totally contradictory, and a major logical fallacy, namely the fallacy of the stolen concept and has absolutely nothing to do with "lack of evidence" or low probabilities. This is the only logical basis for atheism, and probabilities or lack of evidence have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the existence of god. I really hope at least objectivists would stop giving Dawkins any sort of credit, becase its not just his deterministic and intrinsicistic ideas that are bad, it is his version of "atheism" that is bad. Sadly, this doesnt get pointed out often enough, and it really makes my blood boil...
  16. I know sports is a fairly insignifigant part of the grand scheme of race-stuff, but lately the NBA and the NHL are the only leagues i bare to watch, simply because this race crap doesnt pop up all the time. In the NBA, its because there are so many black players and coaches that "black leaders" dont have anything to complain about, and in the NHL it is because "black leaders" dont care about hockey. I hate the NFL and football, because its made to be such a big deal about whether there are "enough" black quarterbacks, or head coaches, and all other kinds of bs. And the "racial profiling" is also quite disturbing. I dont know how much you follow the NFL, but all black quarterbacks are compared to other black quarterbacks, and when the announcers and columnists cant think of a black qb that reminds them of another black qb, they cut corners and just randomly compare them to some black qb. I can once remember Byron Leftwich(a huge black qb, that is slower than my grandmom and cant move at all) being compared to Daunte Culpepper(a really athletic and "shifty" qb that was really quick and fast before his injuries) a few years ago, and nowadays every white wide receiver is compared to New Englands Wes Welker(a small fast guy), no matter what kind of white receiver they are. Not to this day, have i ever heard of a single white wide receiver being compared to a black wide receiver, ever. I mean, i understand that genetics plays a huge part in what kind of bodytypes blacks and whites generally have, but its not like its a 100% true in every case.
  17. I really have no knowledge on whether the Auburn people are racists or not, and they just might be. I mean, if the "old boys club"-excuse still applies anywhere, college athletics would probably be a good candidate as even though it is a big business, it isnt really controlled by market forces and the decision making isnt all that transparent. I mean, there are just 4 black head coaches in the FBS or whatever they call div-1 these days, of about 120 schools, and if you look at the success black head coaches have had in pro sports, it is somewhat alarming.... The funny part is just that Barkley himself advocated for specifically a black basketball coach. Not a specific black basketball coach, but just a black coach in general. And then he accuses Auburn of racism? As a non-racist, its difficult to know how the racist mind works, but i just find it really hard to fathom why a program that has hired black assistant coaches and coordinators would have that big of a problem of hiring black head coaches. And yes, it was really weird that they picked this Chizik(sp?) dude, as he has had a terrible record, but if it would have been mainly about race, as Barkley stated, wouldnt they have picked a more qualified white coach instead of a less qualified? Also, i dont understand why anyone who claims to be interested in racial equality, wants to shoot himself in the foot with programs forcing programs to hire or interview "minority" candidates. That just leads to every black coach being secondguessed, and regarded as not worthy of the job, and only getting the job because of quotas. In pro sports this problem sorts itself out naturally, as teams that use something other than merit and quality as their standards, will get worse results, but in college football, where the money isnt as directly linked with the success of the team and where players tend to pick their schools more on the basis of location than level of play, its not going to be that big of a factor.
  18. I just watched Charles Barkley on ESPN's Pardon the Interruption and he mentioned that if Gary Patterson(white) or Brady Hoke(white) had been selected in front of Gill(black), he wouldnt have been outraged. So, in other words: Auburn is racist, because they select an unqualified(according to Barkley) white coach instead of two qualified white coaches and a qualified black coach? I used to like Barkley on Inside the NBA and ive always known he isnt the sharpest guy around, but ive lost tons of respect for this idiot...
  19. Fairly long post: Ok, im not american, but watch a lot of american media and american sports in particular. Just recently Auburn hired a new football coach, and they chose a white candidate over a black candidate. I dont follow College football that much, so i cant say anything particular, but this is what former NBA player and Auburn alumni Charles Barkley had to say: http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/sports/co...-193405/151868/ Later, in the same article: I have no idea whether the Auburn athletic department is full of KKK racists hating on black candidates and i really doubt it, but how can a person complain about race being a factor, if he himself is openly advocating for race being a factor? A person that openly joins a search committee on the basis of hiring a person of a certaing skin color, doesnt really have much to complain about if other people do it as well. But in the US this crap is tolerated for some reason, and doesnt get called out as racism? And now people are talking about that colleges need to make a rule making it mandatory to interview "minority" candidates for head coaching jobs, just like in the NFL. But i've never understood this logic? If the department heads are as racist as race baiters claim, why would this make any difference? Why would a racist hire a person of a race he hates, just because he is forced to interview them? Also, why would a person want to have an employer that is so stupid that he hates him because of his skin color? It really irks me, because black americans are treated, by both black and white people, as some sort of mental retards that need special rules and laws and that we should lower our expectations regarding a black person. A black person gets huge praise, especially in sports, just for simply being a normal human being, and it is just so damn demeaning. Every time there is a black athlete that can string a few words together and doesnt go shooting up nightclubs or fathering 15 illegitimate children, the announcers say stuff like "Player X really is one of the good guys in the NFL" or "Player X is a really nice guy, very articulate". At the same time 99% of the non-black athletes in the league are doing the same, but never do you hear how Peyton Manning is really articulate, or how he is "one of the good guys" in the league. I dont see anything like this in other countries with people of mixed races, and England, where i visit every now and then, doesnt really seem to have this problem. When you hear a british person talk, there is no way of telling what race the talker in question is. And i who follow the English Premier League(soccer) a lot, cant remember there being any sort of disparity between black and white "troublemakers" in the league, and the only real troublemaker in the league i can think of, is white. One of the biggest problems with "african"-americans(such a stupid term), is that they seem to generally be very "loyal" to people of their race, no matter of their characteristics. When most good people want to distance themselves from bad people, good black americans have this perverse sense of duty to black thugs that shoot up ghettos and terrorize neighborhoods, as if they had anything other in common with them but the color of their skin. There are only a handful of black americans that are "visible" in the media i can think of, that doesnt get sucked in this race baiting and "race loyalty" crap, and most of these people are in their 60's and 70's that were part of those first generations of blacks that became fully free. Just like the case is with immigrants in europe, the ones who actually came here in search of a better life are usually really decent people, but their offspring are the troublemakers because from the day they are born they are treated like "special needs" kids that everyone needs to be "sensitive" to, and that people should lower their expectations towards. The sad part is that the blacks that actually are good, are being called "race traitors", sadly not only by the thugs in the ghettos, but also by more affluent people of all races. For the ones living in the US: is my understanding of the situation correct, or have i gotten the wrong picture from simply watching sports and surfing the internet? Are there any black american members on this site? Do you know many moral black americans? Because this really seems to be an american problem. Sure, there are lots of black crime in europe, but the main reason for that is islam. Most non-muslim black people around are just as likely to be good than any other race, but in america it seems like that isnt the case....
  20. Well, that is excactly what Finland has. I dont know many other "capitalistic" countries than Finland and Sweden, where the unions are as powerful, and it is borderline impossible to get elected without the unions support. Our left wing parties, making up around 40-50 % of the votes, are borderline married with the labour unions. And about ridiculous regulations in all areas of business: Only small grocery stores allowed to be open during sunday, no licqour allowed to be sold privately(state monopoly), Affirmative action(immigrants) and gender quotas in hiring. Almost no possibility to negotiate your terms with your employer, as almost everything, from pay to hours is regulated by a collective bargaining agreement. The Heritage foundation falsely has claimed that Finland has no minimum wage, but in reality that is not true, as the collective bargaining agreement has its own "minimum wages" for every profession. You are not allowed to work or hire someone for less than that, and even if its not called a minimum wage, in reality it is just that. The thing that makes Finland relatively free, is the strength in the rule of law, and the fact that property rights are generally respected here. Low corruption also plays a part. But the thing that continues to impress me about america, and in this case Obama, is that someone can actually win an election by "inspiring" people, and trying to preach hope. If Obama actually meant what he said in his rhetoric, he would be one of the best presidents ever, as his messages of individual liberty, opportunity and hope is perfect. Too bad he doesnt implement that in his policies. This is why i think america will always prevail, despite the shifts in economic policies. It is much more important that the people that the nation is made of, is made of energetic people, trying to make a life for themselves, and i would much rather live in a socialist country with american citizens, than in a capitalist country with finnish citizens. In Finland it is about jealousy, hatred of the good for being the good, and sticking it to the rich. Obviously im no expert on the psyche of all of america, but the ones i've come across in "real life" here in Finland(most of them democrats), have all had a much better outlook on life than most finns, no matter what party they belong to. For an objectivist trying to make a life for himself, i would say it is much more important what the character of the people in your area is, rather than what economic policies the area has. Obviously there comes a tipping point when this isnt true, but Obama is not even close to that. There really are few countries where you can openly state "i want to succeed, i want to be rich, i want to be happy" without being considered a total fool, and if peoples outlook on life is one of suffering, cynicism, and reliance on others, then it doesnt matter what kind of low taxes a country has.
  21. This was in reference to people talking about moving to other countries, and how there will be a socialistic apocalypse. Therefore i just made the point, that no matter how bad you think Obama is, there are no places on earth where you can so fully yourself affect your own life. Sure, there may be some economically free outpost in otherwise culturally unlivable places, but in general, the US still remains no.1, no matter if Obama is in. And considering how little better McCain would have been, it is good that "false" capitalists arent allowed to tarnish the name of capitalism anymore.
  22. Im not american, but i haven't really understood what the big panic about Obama is? Even if he is the most leftist senator over there, he is still far better for objectivists than most so called "right wingers" in other "free" countries. I mean, i live in Finland that is among the top10-15 in most rankings of economic freedom in the world, and our major "right wing" party, the National Coalition Party, supports universal healthcare, "free" education including universities and colleges, higher taxation than US democrats, a mandatory 6-12 month military/civil service for men and huge subsidies for finnish agriculture. And these are the ones getting accused of being evil capitalists over here..... So i really dont get these knee jerk reactions on this board of all places, with people going all nuts with talk about moving abroad or some references to a coming socialist apocalypse when Obama gets elected. Compared to McCain, his plans for reviving the economy is not that much worse, and as neither party wants to challenge the role of the Fed, it doesnt really matter THAT much how much he overtaxes the upper middle class/rich. It's much better that a socialist president that is openly socialist wins, instead of a socialist president that claims to be for the free market. The abhorration that is the modern Republican Party deserved to lose, and this is the best result for us, as now the public has openly thrown out capitalism, and the results that will follow cant be falsely blamed on it. If McCain had won, it would have been a huge blow for the future of capitalism in the US. Now americans get socialism called socialism, instead of socialism called capitalism, and that is good. Now we must all hope that the GOP takes notice and recognizes that God and "your gut feeling" doesnt win elections, and that it makes a decisive step towards free market capitalism and individual liberty, and loses this horrible religious socialism its been pushing for years. Also, i think many objectivists overexaggerate the effect slightly higher taxation has. Sure it sucks, but much more important is the character of the people surrounding you, than whether the government robs 20 or 25% from your wallet. The US is still, from the most leftist democrats to the most nutty religious right wingers, the country where the pursuit of happiness is widely held as an ideal, and small changes in economic policies are not going to change that. I cant think of a single country in the world, where Obama would be considered a "true" leftist, and at least here in Finland he would fit in nicely with our "right wing". As i like to say: "I would much rather live in a "socialist" country full of capitalists, than in a "capitalist" country full of socialists." What matters is how you can yourself affect your own situation, and the fact that someone wants to rob slightly more from you than the next guy, is not that big of a deal. It sucks, but all these knee jerk responses about some apocalypse are really laughable. McCain would not have fixed the economy any better than Obama, and now at least the socialists get the blame for it.... The only really important things in US elections i would consern myself with is national security and keeping the religious nuts out of office. Both candidates had bad national security policies, but at least Obamas election stopped the religious threat, so im happy with Obama being elected.... But the main jist of my post: Dont embarrass yourself with these knee jerk reactions.....
  23. It was the BBC documentary series "Brain Story", but i cant remember which part it was. All 6 parts can be viewed at Google Videos, but im not sure about the copyright stuff.........
  24. That's probably because those are "debates" that consern "issues" instead of principles behind the issues, and it's not just Objectivism that doesnt get debated that often, it is philosophy and principles in general that dont. You wont see many "real" socialists or altruists in debates either, and even though most politicians are politically socialist and altruistic, they rarely debate the underlying principles behind those politics, and i'd even argue that they arent even aware of them. I've usually noticed, that people interested in philosophy in general, even the relativist altruists, are much more "respectful" about Objectivism, and interested in debates. Sure, conversion is difficult, but at least it's not the "she was a russian godless satan", or "Objectivism teaches that you should kill your parents once they get too old" arguments you get.
  25. I saw a documentary about the human brain recently, where they claimed that going out for a walk, in order to think, is a myth, and is actually counterproductive. But if i remember correctly, it was due to the fact, that your brain had to focus on a lot of other moving objects(other people, cars, dogs, obstacles in the road) and that hampered your ability to think...... So i dont think it applies for the "worry room"....
  • Create New...