Devils_Advocate

It is very, very, very important that you read this; it provides an excellent understanding of how health care operated around that time. http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html

I think the idea might have come to their minds in real life, but Rand couldn't afford to make the book any longer than it already was, so she just made them jump to the correct conclusion.

Government has to exist to provide, at the bare minimum, a system of objective laws within which those with rational complaints to make towards their neighbors concerning their property can be addressed. Simply because you are following reason does not mean you are omniscient, and any serious mistake or failure in regards to the law must have a place to be addressed. Also, the guarantee of contracts, the enforcement of them, the recognition of them, is also served by the government, as a form of protection and validation of them. However, this is in a society where everyone does use their reason. Simply because people should use their reason, does not mean they do. Government must also provide a protection for the rational against the irrational (in regards to the practice of property rights; i.e., those who attempt to put into practice the idea of theft). The military and police are meant to be supporters and enforcers of these laws. And that covers all purposes of an Objectivist government. See: Judge Naragansett It's great to see more people getting into Objectivism. My suggestion is to read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and then Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (or, if you lack the stamina, finish AS and jump to OPAR). To get a full, complete, and total picture and understanding of the ideas, I've found that OPAR is completely necessary.

Just a concept I came up with - turning Soviet Propaganda Posters into Objectivist Propaganda posters. Unfortunately, I'm not that great at it. But here's some stuff I came up with. I'd love to see if anyone else has any ideas - and I'll come up with more when I get a better sense of either how to write slogans for art, or a better sense of humor. (PS: All of these ones all based on Atlas Shrugged)

Did anyone else see this and think "1984"? First thing that hit me when I saw "Sex Czar" was the red chastity band the "Women's Liberation League" or whatever it was had to wear. Any idea what I'm talking about? Anyways, here's my nomination:

All right. Okay. I've decided the point of my life. I'm going to spend my life making enough money to buy 2 shiploads and 2 planes of food and other cargo. I'm going to buy an American WWII GI uniform. And I'm going to go there and tell them that I am John Frum, and I've come back with their blessed cargo.

Public Service Announcement, just to cleanse my hands: I am no longer affiliated with the "Objectivist Party" any longer, and have not been for some time.

I moved to this area recently. I live in a small town called Lake Orion - anyone else know where that is?

Was Julius Caesar a hero? Surely, he did some good things. He brought peace and stability to a country being fraught with internal instability. He expanded a great civilization into places like Gaul. He expanded citizenship in the empire. He founded what would become London. He decreased corruption in the government, and moved toward a system of government that did not give the political class considerably more power and "justice" than the lower classes. And, contrary to popular opinion, he was not emperor of Rome. He was declared Dictator in Perpetuity two months before his assassination. Of course, it's hard to overlook the fact that he continued to centralize an already massive state bureaucracy. He did sell those he conquered into slavery. And being an all powerful dictator, even if only for two months, is something that's really hard to justify. So - was Caesar a hero? Can his faults be overlooked in the light of his achievements? Or were his faults just too deep to be ignored? Was he a great man who saved a civilization that would become famous for it's achievements - or a power luster who was to become a tyrannical dictator by overthrowing a republic?

I know there's a thread here discussing where fears of spiders (and other things) originate from, which touched on this topic. But this is meant to be primarily a topic for the idea of curing irrational phobias. I have a severe, (almost literally) paralyzing fear of spiders. My question is, what advice do you have on cures? I've heard 3 suggestions from a broad array of sources: 1. Learn a lot about spiders, then you'll be fine. The problem with this is that I did learn a lot about spiders, and still know a lot about spiders. Furthermore, I know full well that my reactions are quite simply beyond irrational. However, this does not help me whatsoever. 2. Hypnosis. Now I might not know a lot about hypnosis, but as far as I can tell, it's somewhere between Obama and Santa Clause in terms of BS. If I'm wrong on this, let me know, because if someone here can defend it, I'll look into it some more. 3. Spend lots and lots of time around spiders, with a shrink. This seems the most logical option. However, if there's another (cheaper) option, I think I'd take that up first. Curing my arachnophobia has become something of a personal crusade of mine. I was wondering if anyone here know of an option, besides the three above, that could help me with this. A rational, logical way to overcome a fear of irrational, illogical proportions.

I just want to say that I am absolutely in support of this, just in a little more secretive form. We should not start an open war with them, because they might retaliate against Seoul. A secret special ops force to get them out, or a Pearl Harbor style attack would be a good show. The DRNK did something so morally atrocious when it arrested two innocent, foreign citizens, that the United States would be morally justified in destroying it just for that, not to mention the hundreds of other morally outrageous acts it has committed. But when a government sentences two foreign citizens to 12 years in a labor camp - that government has proclaimed it's own barbarism so wholly and nearly irrevocably, there is nothing wrong with blowing the whole thing up.

In 1956, the Hungarian people revolted against their soviet slave masters. They seized the country and established a government in their country. They needed help from America, from Britain, from anyone in the west. And yet, as Soviet Tanks came back and burned the country into the ground and slaughtered the rebels, we did absolutely nothing. We sent nothing, we gave no aid. For a few more decades, Eastern Europe stayed under communist rule. Today, in 2009, we see history repeating itself. Iranians are coming out en masse to stop Islamic Fascism in their country. And yet, as the rebellion is being crushed in it's infancy, America passes a non-binding resolution of support. Obama doesn't want to come out in support of Mousavi. We are offering no help. If we just loaned military forces to the protesters, we could end the Ayatollah's dictatorship. But no. We stand by, and just wish the protestors good luck. Damn, we're weak.

For a while now, I've dreamed of going into Investment Banking. Starting out as an analyst at Goldman Sachs, and rising to the top to command the finances of the earth, moon, and mars, and earning tens of billions of dollars. If there's still a Pay Czar when I'm out of college, America will have lost one more investment banker. I'm not working 100 hours a week so some czar can control my pay. Screw that. I'm leaving. Ni Hao, Hong Kong!!!

I've spent a lot of time recently thinking about how to prevent what happened in America: The gradual corruption and elimination of the principles of truly limited government. Given enough time, any system can become corrupt, and completely over run the constitution with no problems. The "checks and balances" system is easily eliminated by a "it's outdated" philosophy, circumventions such as we see today with the 16 czars, or more commonly, easily, and simply, bribery and blackmail. I've been trying to find a solution that keeps the system as free as possible of this corruption, and keeps the ideas of a capitalist government so airtight only outright military takeovers could get rid of it. I've had some conclusions - give the population the legal authority to storm the branches of government and replace it's members by whatever means necessary. Unfortunately, this requires an educated population, which may not be sustainable over the long run. It's also violent, filled with destruction, and would be an over the top reaction in many instances. Recently, I was reading "Reflections on the Revolution in France", and he was talking about the concept of Monarchy in England. He was talking about how the hereditary transference of a limited, constitutionally stated amount of power by a King could insure a passing on of tradition, and keep certain concepts about governance passed down and kept in the government. So I was thinking - could we not have a constitutional monarchy in a Capitalist state, where a hereditary king brought up in the traditions of free enterprise would hold something like the powers of Speaker of the house and be on a cabinet or something (not to mention the enormous cultural role he would pose) to ensure the security of Liberty for as long as possible? I'm not saying I am in support of this theory - I was just thinking about it. Tell me what your thoughts are, both on the idea and the concept of ensuring an airtight constitution.

I have to agree on you with this; in current American political definitions, Right-Wing means two things: Smaller Government, and Pro-America. So that makes us part of the right wing. Libertarians, Republicans, Conservatives, and Independent Center-Rights are also on the "right-wing". Simple fact. On the article - it was simply a piece of trash, a neo-con bashing an author whom he's obviously never given serious consideration and/or read her books. He refuses to consider the possibilities of individual liberty and prefers to live in a constant world of depression and despair, for reasons I don't understand. Just my two cents.

More research. The movie did a terrible job portraying the facts. Yes, the crowd was a threat, no doubt, but does being hit with ice really justify firing into a crowd? If people were assulting them en masse, then yes, the soldiers had the right to fire, and if one individual was assulting them, the soldiers had the right to fire on them. But when you fire randomly into a riot, when you have minimal threat, you overstep self-defense. He did have the right to fear for his life to a small extent, but but the situation was not dire enough for him to justify shooting at whoever was in his line of fire. Were he seriously injured, then it would be a different story. But the fact is he severly over-reacted to a mild clonk on his head.

I've been watching John Adams, and me and my mom got into a debate about the Boston Massacre. My question is, do you believe the soldiers were innocent, harrased people whose lives were threatened, or butchers who over-reacted to a mild threat? Here's how I see it: First, Preston is innocent as we are. Even if he did shout an order to fire, it never would have been heard over the screaming crowd of 500 rioters. But the rest of them are guilty. Hugh White (I think) was hit by a club, yes, but if he gets back up, takes aim, shouts, and fires, he obviously wasn't in life-threatening condition. Unless your life is really being threatened, a policeman (or, in this case, a soldier) has no right to fire a gun blindly into a crowd. These men's lives were, perhaps, mildly threatened, but the fact that they had fully loaded guns and the rioters had, at most, clubs, absolves the crowd. What's your take?

There are some nutcase dictators whom I respect as leaders and will make some excuses for, to a certain extent (Napolean, or Ceaser), but Qin Shi Huang is certainly not one of them. He may have united China, but think - was that really such a huge accomplishment? Sure, it shows his army was brutal and well trained, and he was a master at diplomatic intimidation, but beyond that, it shows very little in the way of promoting a nation. He wasted time using his military to conquer the area, when he could have used that effort to build his own state and beome a dominant political player, and possibly have peacefully united the states. But even then, the states split not too long after. Civil war, followed by reunion, has just been part of Chinese history. Qin Shi Huang was just another player in that cycle. And, the fact that his dynasty fell apart after his brutal and psychopathic 13 year reign shows that he was not very good at politics, besides being able to intimidate everyone within his reach.

Excellent article. Much appreciated, especially considering that I am - for the most part - a closet atheist. Very inspiring.

I can see the 60 minutes episode now: You've heard of cartoons that promote indecency...that promote homosexuality... that send evil messages when you watch them backward... now, in the latest addition to the cartoon conspiracy to destroy America, Jill's Objectivist Cartoons! Wallace: Did you kill Kennedy? Jill: What? No, of course not! Wallace: Then you were connected to the conspiracy? Is that where you got your funding? How about the Roswell incident? The Watergate cover up? Was Nixon talking to you during those 18 missing minutes? Jill: This is insane, I'm leaving ... Wallace: SHE CONFESSED! WE'VE GOT THEM NOW!

It actually turns out that every success, fortune, and achievement in mankind has been orchestrated by one evil banker hiding deep underground, with his trillions of dollars. The man also single-handedly engineered every major event in history, so he could make more money. None of the historic people we read about are real. In fact, who says anyone is real? God, I can't believe this person scored an article.

Who is John Galt?

During the early 1930's, Hitler and the Nazi Government got rid of a lot of political enemies by either pressuring them (through threats to them, their families, blackmailing them) into suicide or staging one. An example is the director of the German movie "Titanic." He was arrested, and found in his cell dead by hanging. It isn't known for sure, but most people think the Nazis hung him and made it look like a suicide.

I think the way the way that the AIG executive hearings and the firing of the GM CEO were held was evidence of how much pressure and persecution the Government is willing to heap upon CEOs. I don't think it's all that likely the government killed/pushed him to suicide, but I don't think it's that far past them.

Here's just my quick take on the subject, if no one minds: Quantum mechanics is certainly flawed in many areas, but we've also got to remember that it is an incredibly complex and relatively new science; you can't expect it to be completed in a few years, or even decades. I'm sure that, after enough study, someone will revolutionize our understanding of quantum physics the same way Einstein revolutionized our understanding of Newtonian physics. I don't think arguing about this subject on a philosophy forum is really beneficial.