Beckarr

Most economically illiterate Americans will have the idea that some sort of jump in the debt is a bad thing but they won't know why, yet. The real impact from this would start with the international response, which would be foreign countries losing faith in the future stability of the US dollar. With a huge debt increase from putting things on the books and a huge trade deficit, the only way to get rid of the debt would be to print money. Printing money would lower it's value, making it less attractive to foreign countries to the point where other countries could possibly sell the US dollars that they have. This lowers the value of the US dollar even more, making foreign goods more expensive. If the dollars that foreign countries sold made it back to America then there would be an incredible inflation as the total amount of dollars circulating in the US economy would increase. I don't think this law would be passed because these politicians don't care about the truth or solvency, they only care about public appearance of them doing a good job so that they can get reelected.

Of course there's the Ayn Rand Center and the Ayn Rand Institute but do those teach full courses in Economics, Accounting, Business, Finance, Engineering amongst? Where could I get a graduate education for business that is in full support of capitalism? To give you a little information on my current education, I'm going to University of California Santa Cruz for Business Management Economics. Nearly every class I take for economics is mired in Keynesian economic theory and arguing that government intervention in the market is necessary because the free market doesn't work. They cite things such as global warming, "exploitation" of labor for profit, that the financial crisis was caused by greed, deregulation and capitalism amongst other things. It's basically an uphill battle. So I'm thinking about finishing my degree in business management economics and accounting so that I can be an accountant to make and save money until I can start my own small business.

Investment would be the word that I would use.

Can anyone shed some light on the topic of ocean acidity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification A lot of people say that it's going to kill all the coral or something like that. I'm unsure of what to think about it. I don't think that it's caused by us as so many people say or we're not the primary cause. Is it really as bad as their predictions? I can imagine environmentalists skewing their predictions for the future in order to cause more alarm and get people on their side. If anyone could help explain this situation I would appreciate it.

I think that they could make it work if Leonard Peikoff or Yaron Brook made a public challenge to debate the intellectual issues of health care with Obama. That way, all the unrest in the populace over the proposed health care could see the objectivist viewpoint as a key to overcoming the statist's. Why did Roark never have a full-on debate with Toohey again? Publicly call out Obama's health care proposal for what it is and offer the real solution of cutting back on government intervention and then have a debate about it. Peikoff and Brook could clearly show the foundations of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics that lead to free market capitalism and they could ask Obama to clearly lay out his metaphysics, epistemology and ethics that lead to his proposal for health care. Then call him out when he will desperately try to evade the question in any way possible. If this was set up in a forum where both would be safe from possible assassination, televised along with having independent, free people able to record it with their own cameras so they can show it unedited and they had ample time to respond without the other person interrupting them then I think it would be great for advancing the objectivist philosophy in today's world.

"I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to just get out of the way so we can clean up the mess." -Obama in your link http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dont-want-th...lot-of-talking/ I find it very irritating that he has the gall to tell the private health care industry and private insurance companies to "get out of the way". If government would just get the hell out of the way then prices would fall and more people would get health care. Is there any way to show someone like this the mistake of their thinking? Why can't we have a full on multiple hour debate between Leonard Peikoff and Barack Obama?

This is essentially what I would like to work towards. It's tough because all the current mainland is in use. Maybe buying a island would work? That would cost a lot though. How about moving to the most free state of the United States and through peaceful persuasion change it to reflect more objectivist politics.

You all bring up good points which is exactly why I wanted to talk about this here. I was thinking about Zimbabwe because of the horrendous inflation that is going on there. I really just want to overthrow the government and put in place a system similar to the united states, with a declaration of independence and a constitution that recognizes the individual's rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. There would need to be a separation of government, church, and economics. My plan would involve educating the local population about the tenets of Objectivism and then leading a campaign against the current government. I would either have to form militias out of the population or hire PMC's like blackwater to overcome their armies. In the ideal situation there would be a bloodless coup when people weigh the ideas out but the chances for that are slim. But this is all so very risky. Perhaps my resources would be better spent trying to take the most free State of the United States and pushing it to become similar to Galt's Gulch on a much larger scale. I want to see how it would work out in reality and what it could produce. Do you guys think that if 2/3 of a US State voted to secede from the United States that they would be allowed to? Especially if the federal government was restricting them from prospering then I think that they should be able to do it. How are you going to bring about greater freedom in the world?

It is a dream of mine to overthrow the most illegitimate country in Africa and create New America or a country simply called Liberty. I would like to see what a country with the separation of church, government and economics could really do. Before I could do that though I would need to be able to first of all get clean food, clean water and AIDs medicine. I would also need to find some way to stop the armies from destroying me. Maybe I should talk to the CIA before trying to do something like this, but then again, they might be the ones that are trying to destroy me. I imagine the closer I would get to fulfilling this dream, the more likely someone with the opposite position would be willing to try to assassinate me. I guess the first thing I would need to do would be to get the people on my side and on the side of freedom and individual rights. Maybe set up some orphanages where the kids would farm the land for their own food and I would teach them basically objectivism along with other vital skills to give them the tools they need to succeed in the world or just their life. There's a lot to think about. Any thoughts about this dream of mine? I would hope to recruit the Prime Movers in my quest for freedom.

I see it as a way to reconcile religious terminology with concepts that actually exist. In a way it's bringing their supernatural ideas back to the natural world. It helps me argue with theists better. I claim to be an objectivist but also a pantheist, I don't see any difference in the view of reality. I don't think they contradict each other so it should be alright (unless I'm mistaken, then I will be an objectivist only). As I said before, my pantheism acts merely as a reconciliation of terminology.