Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

IchorFigure

Regulars
  • Posts

    532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by IchorFigure

  1. So according to Fox the t.v. show the Simpsons has become unprofitable to continue another season without lowering the stars earnings. And as it stands they're only considering one final season at best, and outright ending the show at worst if no agreement is reached. http://screenrant.com/the-simpsons-final-season-24-aco-135041/ If you follow the show you know that the stars have continued to insist an increasing pay per episode over the years. At one point they were seeking $500k per episode and agreed upon $440k. Now Fox would like to make one more season but only if they agree to a $250k per episode deal. This has quickly become an issue about "greed" and what makes a "fair share" in the business world. Commenters say the voice actors are greedy for wanting more money, voice actors say the Fox businesses leaders are greedy for not sharing more profits. And now Harry Shearer has commented on the subject. http://tv.ign.com/articles/119/1198948p1.html So what do you think? I have a hard time evaluating their situation without much insight into the "biz" works. For me the Simpsons became unfunny about 8 years ago or more and hasn't deserved to stay on the air this long, let alone command $440k figures for voice actors who schill for Scientology. So is this a case of the Simpsons being strangled to death by extorting voice actors? Here I'm thinking of entrenched unions who fattened themselves on the Michigan automotive industry smothering it. I'm not certain to what extent the voice actors may have union-chummy law leverage versus actually mutually agreed upon contracts. I think that if the Simpsons ends because of idiotic Leftist notions about profits and greed it would be appropriate seeing as how it's been a mouthpiece for leftism for a while now. In the end it might just be the better and more merciful alternative for a show that has lost all value long ago.
  2. In regards to "coming to the nuisance", as it seems to me is that it is the element where Capitalism achieves the goals that forced government zoning laws pretend to but can't. For example if a nuclear plant is built then private homes are unlikely to built next door because most people would prefer other areas. So instead perhaps a saw mill or another industrial facility which is not affected would use the land nearby instead. And conversely a nuclear plant would not typically choose to build next to a block of private houses. This is not a point that is the fundamental issue in the OP but it is just one to consider. It is that most likely what you would have is some natural "districting" occuring that sections off businesses that involve sexuality. This already happens in major cities. You go to a district knowing ahead of time to expect shops that are geared toward sexual products. It's unlikely any parent would go out of their way to take a stroll with the kiddies to the red light district.
  3. Starting tonight ARI will have a series of several lectures and debates live streamed over the internet for free. (I'm not a representative of ARI I'm just reposting this) Ayn Rand and the Tea Party: A Recipe for Cultural Change A public talk by Yaron Brook Yaron Brook will illustrate how Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged sheds light on the unseen forces that drive cultural and political trends and how the ideas in the novel are vital to any effort to limit government. Location and Details Monday, September 27, 2011 7:00 p.m. Central Chanhassen Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dr. Brook's talk will be live streamed for free through the Ayn Rand Center Facebook page. You do not need a Facebook account to view the talk. This event is free and open to the public. For more information, please visit the SW Metro Tea Party website. Livestream link >>>> http://www.facebook....pp_142371818162 The rest of the series is being held as part of the Undercurrent's "Capitalism Awareness Week". Regulating Capitalism: Moral Necessity or Moral Treason? A live streamed debate at the University of Minnesota The recent economic downturn has led to much cultural debate about the proper role of capitalism. Should we allow a concentration of wealth in the hands of the few or redistribute it so everyone gets an 'equal' share? Is capitalism to blame for our current troubles, or is it government intervention? Join Yaron Brook and Dane Smith as they debate the the proper implementation of capitalism in society, including the moral implications and the role of government. Debaters: Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights Dane Smith, president of Growth and Justice Location and Details Tuesday, September 27, 2011 5:30 p.m. Pacific 6:30 p.m. Mountain 7:30 p.m. Central 8:30 p.m. Eastern University of Minnesota, Twin-Cities Willey Hall, Room 175 [map] The event will also be ive streamed online worldwide. For more information, visit the Capitalism Awareness Week website. Livestream link for all remaining talks >>>> http://capitalismweek.org/live/ The Revolutionary Case for Capitalism A live streamed lecture at the University of Wisconsin, Madison by Eric Daniels Despite capitalism's enormous success in producing material abundance and political freedom, it faces a crisis--one that may lead to its demise. Capitalism is perishing because its supposed defenders lack a real defense. In this lecture, Eric Daniels explores the most common arguments in favor of capitalism. He finds that they all break down in the face of the popular argument that capitalism is immoral and destructive—because it is selfish. Dr. Daniels explains that only Ayn Rand's crucial insight—that capitalism is the only moral social system because it is based on "the virtue of selfishness—can truly defend capitalism. He illustrates the need for a moral, and not just an economic, defense of capitalism. Location and Details Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:30 p.m. Pacific 6:30 p.m. Mountain 7:30 p.m. Central 8:30 p.m. Eastern University of Wisconsin, Madison and live streamed online worldwide. For more information, visit the Capitalism Awareness Week website. Can the Entitlement State Survive? And Should It? A live streamed lecture at the University of California, Irvine by Don Watkins It's an open secret that America is headed for an entitlement crisis, with the U.S. government facing over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Something is going to have to be done, but what? Some propose raising taxes. Others propose cutting benefits. Many propose a mix of both. The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights' Don Watkins will explain why he thinks these solutions are hopeless. He will argue that eliminating the entitlement state will actually create a freer, more just, more prosperous nation. Location and Details Thursday, September 29, 2011 6:00 p.m. Pacific 7:00 p.m. Mountain 8:00 p.m. Central 9:00 p.m. Eastern University of California, Irvine and live streamed online worldwide. For more information, visit the Capitalism Awareness Week website. From the Government and Here to Help A Ford Hall Forum Debate From the financial crisis to Obamacare to the budget debates, the size and scope of government is being debated across the country. One side calls for more regulation to foster equitable prosperity because the free market is out of control. The other side says government has grown too big and intrusive; we need to mitigate its power while rediscovering the founders’ principles. Dr. Yaron Brook, Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute, and Dr. David Callahan, Co-Founder of Demos, join Ford Hall Forum President Dominick Ianno to debate the fundamental social, economic, and moral ideas that underlie politics in America today. Location and Details Thursday, September 29, 2011 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. C. Walsh Theatre, Suffolk University 55 Temple Street (behind the State House on Beacon Hill) Boston, MA 02114 The event is free and open to the public, but registration is required. Visit the Ford Hall Forum page to register. Navigating the Markets Three Years After the Financial Crisis: Investment Opportunities, Corporate Governance & Financial Performance in a New Global, Regulatory Environment A panel featuring Yaron Brook Standard & Poor’s unprecedented downgrade of U.S. debt, coupled with Europe’s debt crisis, has caused the economic recovery to be uneven, impacting investors, retirement security, corporate profitability, and investment opportunities in the stock, bond, and derivatives markets. Our panel of experts will provide insights and help guide us through new, key investor protection measures, while engaging in a robust debate on significant issues affecting investors, such as investment opportunities created by volatility in the financial markets, whether the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 will help prevent the next financial crisis, the role of credit rating agencies, the new CFTC derivatives rules, and the link between corporate governance and financial performance. Location and Details Tuesday, October 4, 2011 Reception at 5:30 p.m. Pacific Introductory remarks at 6:30 p.m. Question & Answer at 8:15 p.m. USD Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice Theatre (first floor) 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 If you are interested in attending, please register on the event website and check the "Brandes Investment Partners" box. The Financial Crisis: Causes, Consequences and Cures A live streamed lecture at North Carolina State University by John Allison The cause of the recent financial crisis and subsequent economic downturn has been hotly debated over the last few years. The media, politicians, and even many businessmen have placed the blame on the supposed excesses of free-market capitalism. In this lecture, John Allison, former Chairman and CEO of BB&T, argues that this crisis is in fact a legacy of government's anti-capitalist policies. Mr. Allison presents his unique perspective of the financial services industry to support his argument that massive government intervention into the U.S. economy—from the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 to a reckless crusade to encourage home-ownership—laid the groundwork for an unsustainable real estate boom. He offers his views on what contributed to the financial crisis and how the government's response to the inevitable bust—a frenzied series of bailouts, nationalizations, and "stimulus" efforts—is only making things worse. Finally, Mr. Allison discusses some of his proposed immediate and long-term solutions for moving us towards a stronger economy. Mr. Allison will demonstrate that capitalism, far from being the cause of our financial troubles, is its only cure. Location and Details Tuesday, October 4, 2011 5:00 p.m. Pacific 6:00 p.m. Mountain 7:00 p.m. Central 8:00 p.m. Eastern North Carolina State University and live streamed online worldwide. For more information, visit the Capitalism Awareness Week website.
  4. Notice how the interviewer mentions some other company (I suppose Solyndra?) who hired "too many" workers using government money which is totally different. As if Peter Schiff is about to hire "too many" workers with his own business and money.
  5. I was furious when Santorum told the gay soldier who asked on a Youtube video if he would reverse the ended policy of DADT. Santorum said under his presidency he would put it back into place because gays shouldn't get a "special privilege" and the military isn't for "sex". So being able to talk about your life without lying is a "special privilege", and being gay is tantamount to some kinky sex fetish. What an asshole. The rest of the debate was par for the course. Mitt Romney lying, Perry acting, Ron Paul sounding weird, Ginrich looking like a Lucas Arts CG monster.
  6. lol did they really? If so at least that was one selfish justification for him to waste his time on these frigs.
  7. Interesting stuff. http://ngrams.google...s=0&smoothing=3 Had to check on one of my most hated buzzwords of the moment, "sustainable". Some more fun. Global cooling dies off around 1988. http://ngrams.google...s=0&smoothing=3 Global warming takes off around 1988. http://ngrams.google...s=0&smoothing=3 Also it's case sensative search. So upper case Rand's Objectivism yields a different result than lower case objectivism in your initial search. http://ngrams.google...s=0&smoothing=3 And here's both objectivism and Objectivism charted together. http://ngrams.google...s=0&smoothing=3 Here's variations of socialism, communism, and capitalism all together. http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=socialism%2C+Socialism%2C+Communism%2C+communism%2C+capitalism%2C+Capitalism&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
  8. Yes. I get tired of hearing people call him "stupid" and then have a laugh about he needs to learn "such and such" facts (particularly Christians who should be the last people on earth to throw the "stupid" stone). He doesn't care and he won't ever care. He's far worse than being "stupid". However I also don't mean to imply that he's some kind of Machiavellian evil genius scheming to bring about ruin. He is only cashing in on the huge amount of altruist and statist mentalities that have been sewn into people's minds for decades.
  9. It's easy to laugh at some of the silly translations it can make but this article made me appreciation Google's massive efforts much more.
  10. I really enjoy oo.net and it's the only Objectivism forum I will visit. Even though I don't post a whole lot I enjoy reading much of the posts. And while I'm at it I'll say I really like the new updated skin style, it's a lot more sleak and easy on the eyes. Something that has always bothered me though is the huge amount of highly niche subforums. Some of which overlap in their category. Just trying to figure out where is best to post a new topic can be confusing. I think that the main "philosophy" sections and its forums are fine. But for example, the "current events" subforums are all very closely related and might benefit from just becoming "news" or something similar. Just a suggestion which might streamline things a bit and leave less untouched subforums.
  11. The debate took place. A recording exists. But the status of it I sense is in limbo. It's between the pertinent parties involved as to what would happen to have it shown. Might be cool if it ever gets the green light, but then again watching some of the frustrating Demos debates made me reconsider.
  12. Thanks for arguing against the zero people in this thread who were advocating for not thinking for themselves. How about that there debate.
  13. Oh yes it seems so. I clicked through to the youtube vid and the account has ARI in the title. Looks pretty decent.
  14. So I'm also pretty sure that the Ayn Rand Institute has a documentary coming out with a similar idea. Although I'm pretty sure that that one is called "Apocolypse Now?". So is this really a wholly different second Rand documentary examining her within modern events? Surprising.
  15. I brought up those points because those were the the main things he discussed at this debate. Has Ron Paul said he is open to the idea of going to war with nations that act as an aggressor to the U.S.? I don't follow him much, but I have yet to run into him take this kind of position. I understand and agree with that. I stated it in that way because that is how Rick Santorum spoke of Iran. It was just worth pointing out how Santorum is recognizing a right to married homosexuals one moment in the context of religious authoritarians. While the next moment he is proud of his very own religiously authoritarian refusal to recognize those rights to a homosexual marriage. This reminds me of one criticism I forgot about. Ron Paul also seems to believe that sanctions are a type of initiation of force. In his mind refusing to trade with Iran is an improper national policy because it restricts citizens rights to trade freely, and justifiably makes the Iranians upset with us. The point is that he thinks rights come from "nature" or the "Creator" at all. Which he said during this debate. He doesn't seem to get that individual rights are an expression of the essential features of being human and using your mind. But that's the question; would it? Or would his particular ideas put into practice only lead to more confusion and a setback to the goal of individual rights and Capitalism? (or worse)
  16. I thought that Ron Paul's biggest flaws were heavily on display this debate. He would use almost any excuse to segue into talking about war. During the debate he maintained his stance that foreign aggression is the fault of the U.S. for its interventionist policies. Specifically saying that Iran is justified to oppose America because it installed the Shah in the 50's. As well as saying that Iran naturally should seek nuclear weapons because it would gain more respect, and would want them as its surrounded by nuclear capable countries (China, America, India, Pakistan, etc.). I think that Ron Paul gets a lot of support here for some good reasons. People see the state of the "War on Terror" and it's a failed mess. They want it over. So it's likely he appeals to that kind of mood right about now. At the same time however his actual stance is more than just ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He's actually more of a pacifist (as long as it's the U.S. doing the warring). So there's also a contingent of old school hippy pacifist support in his ranks. His view of Iran I think is not even naive, and frankly suicidal. Rick Santorum rebuked him pretty harshly and appropriately on Iran. Mentioning how Iran is a massive violator of woman's rights, and gay rights (before Santorum later went on to answer questions about how he opposes gay marriage lol). Santorum is not admirable but he was right to point out Paul's stupidity on Iran. Ron Paul also likes to punt massive rights violations to the states in a typically Libertarian fashion. He maintained that embryos are people who deserve a shot at life, but that it's not right for the Federal level to decide. But if mob rule decides at the state level then it is super. Similarly his stance on gay marriage is that the government should just not have a say in the legality of marriage, but he himself thinks marriage is only one man with one woman. And then of course he is still essentially a Christian who believes that rights come "from our Creator". I definitely understand why some people are prepared to vote for Ron Paul so enthusiastically; he's a small breathe of fresh air in the bits he gets right. But with that there's an awful lot he gets wrong. What worries me is considering if this guy really got put into office, what would those 4 years look like? Would his presidency result in an America being better off and delayed on it's road to statism? Or would his inherent Christianity, pacifism, and anti-government ideas (as opposed to pro-capitalist) wind up besmirching the progress of individual rights and laissez faire Capitalism for years? (If not even worse, wind up emboldening a nuclear Iran to destroy Isreal or attack the U.S).
  17. No you aren't. Romney strikes me as someone who is some kind of terrible hybrid of Bush and Obama. He has a venear of folksy down-home charm that is polished to perfection, superficially like a Bush. But a disturbing, cold and unflinching kind of quality that feels like putting on an act like Obama or Pelosi. Pawlenty criticized his healthcare to his face and he ghoulishly stared right back with his frozen cartoon grin. Very Pelosi-like IMO.
  18. I don't know, but thanks for mentioning that website, it's really cool!
  19. For us non-math folks could give some hint of what it would mean to have this solved?
  20. Gridlock for president, as usual. Failing that then possibly just abstaining again.
  21. I don't know but I would guess it's just because people on OO.net are most likely the choir to be preached to. Their time is probably better spent advocating in the mainstream if that's what they want to do.
  22. This is the Paleoconservative argument that cultures are at "war" with each with their birthrates. That Western culture is doomed to collapse because immigrant populations are reproducing faster than the civilian population of Western Christians. For a good example of that argument just take a look at the amazon page for Pat Robertson's book, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization. For Paleoconservatives, "demographics are destiny". The funny thing about this idea to me is how much it mirrors the idea on the left of Global Warming. Spurious data is collected and then used to claim that as a matter of simple guaranteed fact by X year Y increases will make the climate change so drastic that it will destroy civilization. And as a necessary unquestionable solution to the problem massive government controls and violations of rights are needed. Similarly Paleoconservatives argue that as a matter of simple guaranteed fact by X year Y increases will change the population's political disposition so drastically that it will destroy civilization. And as a necessary unquestionable solution to the problem massive government controls and violations of rights are needed. As in Global Warming too, there's some truths to the surrounding facts, but the idea has major issues that don't bear out the conclusions. For one it is cherry-picking. Why focus only on incoming immigrants? There are plenty of native born leftists who do the lion's share of supporting and advocating for bad government policies that are just as harmful. Do they simply not count because they're native born? Or perhaps the argument is just a convenient way of justifying a person's latent xenophobic and racist feelings. And secondly it's also deterministic. It assumes as a matter of due course that any children born to Islamic parents must accept Islam and proceed to throw their support behind Sharia law and overthrowing Western civilization. There's no room or expectation that newer generations of Muslims might somehow freely choose to prefer the ideals of the West over their religion. Of course there is some truth to the matter that the wide spread of egalitarianism and multiculturalism enable the worst aspects of Islam and Sharia law to be potent. But that's no different than bad intellectual ideas of any type having their due effect. The answer is to advocate against those ideas and work to end their influence.
  23. The most disturbing part for me is how NOT crazy this guy seems to be. By which I mean that for all purposes he seems to be a functioning person, with some incredibly evil and poisonous ideas he takes very seriously. He seems to hold the Determinist version of the typical "conservative" idea that cultures are at war with each other over how many little baby followers their culture vs. culture X produces. And he sees Islam as threatening to overtake traditional European Christian culture due to the effects of egalitarianism. Which, frankly has a lot of truth to it. But his response seems to be fighting a dark age crusade with his own religions dark age crusade and apparently murdering dozens of innocents.
  24. Interesting... although sick. So he is a Christian then? May I ask where this PDF and its link were sourced from? Thanks for the reply.
×
×
  • Create New...