Devils_Advocate

I'm in Falmouth. It's about 10 miles north of Portland, just off exit 52 or exit 53. Maine is a very nice place. I've been here about a year and a half, and I really like it. Nice country. I prefer crowded cities and imposing skyscrapers, but scenic country isn't bad. Not to get too off topic, I love the theme from the Firefly show. It's not what I would call my personal anthem (well, maybe, I still haven't decided), but it's fantastic. It's called "Ballad of Serenity":

I've always thought it was cool. Personally, I like Rand's sense of style. I'm not big into the whole black thing, but she was definitely original. Can you imagine a public personality, best selling author, and popular lecturer today, who wore this?: I also want to add the woman in the painting, "October Eve". Gorgeous, absolutlely gorgeous on every level:

I just want to add my two cents here. I think what might be a viable option is having most objectivists who can move into a city-state, like Hong Kong or Singapore. I'm already making plans to move to Hong Kong after college (much to my parent's frustration). It's not really gulching - we're still integrated in a society - but we'd be concentrating, and hopefully having a positive effect on where we've all moved. It's sort of like an Objectivist City version of the Libertarian Free State Project. It doesn't have the hopelessly unachievable goal of a Objectivist USA, or the hermit - like idea of moving to a secret cave in the desert. Remember, the Gulch in AS was filled with maybe 1,000 people holding out until they could take the world back. Not 25,000 Objectivists who decided the world wasn't worth it. Just a rough draft of an idea, and I won't pretend I think it's fool-proof by any standard. Just my ideas on this topic.

I think, in some of the better done photographs when she was younger, she is quite attractive. These two pictures are the best: And even in the Mike Wallace interview, she didn't look unattractive. I think it depends a lot on when the picture was taken.

I'll get it on iTunes ASAP! (As soon as possible might be a little bit longer then the abbreviation implies, but I'll get it eventually)

*** Mod's note: merged with an earlier thread. - sN *** I want to get a few books on Economics that support a laissez faire market, and I was wondering which ones are the best (other then the obvious Ayn Rand ones). I was thinking about a few books from the Austrian School - Mises, Rothbard, etc. They may be anarchists, but they had good economic arguments. From what I remember, Ayn Rand favored the Austrian School. If you have any input, I'd like to hear. And if you have any other ideas on non-fiction texts (not necessarily economics) that seem to be behind Objectivist theories, please let me know. I'm going on a bit of a Amazon spree this weekend.

Fair Tax Anarchist Communist (?) Anarchist Capitalist Good in theory, bad in practice (This reeks of more Kantianism then any other catch phrase I've ever heard) Benevolent Dictator Government Efficency

Exaltron - I love it! Absolutely fantastic! Is it your own work?

Audrey Hepburn is one of the most attractive actresses I've ever seen. And I completely agree with Topliner on Alizee. Love her hair style (always found bobbed/shorter hair on a woman very attractive). Allison Mack, actress. Emma Watson is gorgeous too. Perfect body shape.

"My name is Yaron Brook. You are probably asking, 'Who the hell is Yaron Brook?'"

You think he won't? Obviously, that wasn't serious, but it's already been done figuratively. FDR did it in 100 days. Wilson did it in one act. It's mostly been a prop for the government for a 100 or so years. If he did do it, it wouldn't mean much. Just enhance his image. Some pictures I've found:

I'm in debate club at my high school, and I'm doing Lincoln-Douglas debate format. It's a debate over a topic, and you defend the pro/con side based on a philosophic value. This time around, the question is: Should convicted felons be given the right to vote? Personally, I think not. The point of a prison system is to remove individuals from society. Giving them a voice in the running of it kind of defeats the point. Just wondering what your opinions on this were, and what philosophic/moral/political value I could use to go pro/con (our sides are chosen for us). Thanks!

The Bolsheviks blamed the social democrats when their agenda didn't work out because they weren't radical enough in 1917. It could be the same sort of thing.

Please...kill me... Hey, you can't blame me. I did everything (ok, not EVERYthing) I could to stop him. When their up to their knees in blood, It won't be my fault. Obama possibly may be worse then FDR. He can only hope a crisis like FDR's (WWII) will prevent it from being noticed. I imagine that will happen. Maybe the fact that he's African-American will make him a saint, just like Kennedy's assassination made him a saint. But we can hope...lol... For anyone else who is horrified and disgusted at the onset of communism in America, I recomend this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqfpPf_EO0. It's called "How far we've come". They chorus is "I believe it all is coming to an end/ Oh well, I guess, we're going to pretend/ Let's see how far we've come/ Let's see how far we've come/..."

I like some of his ideas on face value, and I respect him for the same reason I respect George Bush (or did) - he's not a back down, flip flop kind of guy. His ideas are FAR from perfect, but he doesn't compromise on them for popularity. However, his views on social issues - especially immigration - I just find annoying. I really like Glenn Beck though. But if he says something really stupid, I can go on without watching or listening to him for weeks at a time.

That is scary to me. I'm writing a novel (I'll be elaborating on it more later) where, 450 years in the future, there is an almost pure collectivist society - makes 1984 look like modern day France, but doesn't quite approach Anthem's WE. The economy is abased on the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." What happens is a factory produces x amount of units. They are shipped to Resource Warehouses (stores) where anyone can come in and take whatever they NEED. Workers are paid this way - currency has been abolished. Obviously, the stores - whenever they are stocked - are emptied within minutes by the armies of homeless bums. So this joke was kind of scary to me. Still funny though.

Opps. Sorry.

Did they cause depressions? Yes, but not intentionally. This is a side effect. Did they cause wars? Inadvertently, i.e., they caused the depression, which caused WWII. So they did (sort of), but it wasn't a conspiracy. A group of men in suits didn't sit down at a table deep underground in a dimly lit room in 1913 and plot the next 200 years. Sorry.

This was forwarded to me. It is one of the best explanations of taxation's effects I've ever read. But the guy so obviously copied Rand (just kidding). Bar Stool Economics Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics University of Georgia For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Speaking as a high school student, I can say it's scary to see how far this kind of stuff goes. Eventually, you here very smart students begin to vehemently attack man, declare that nothing is absolute, and to here them reiterate mindless bromides that are - to them, as it was to their teachers before them - unchallengeable absolutes (hey, if nothing is absolute, then that statement isn't absolute, so you can create absolutes because they don't exist). And it's amazing how far they go to try and convince us to form our own conclusions, and then attack them as unrealistic, selfish, anti-social, and wrong (despite the fact that they don't believe in wrong). However, I am very luck to say that - from what I can tell - all of my radical objectivist essays have been objectively graded - even though some of them disagreed with the idea of objective reality.

When I read the Fountainhead, it took me a while to catch on to Toohey being Evil. For a while, I was just like, he's a normal old man. Very Wrong, but he seems to be kind just a normal guy - perhaps even a little harmless. Then, when he was talking to Stoddard and said the Temple was "bad" because "God didn't want you to make it", or something like that, I can't remember the exact quote. But when I read that, literally, I almost threw up. I found that absolutely revolting on sooo many levels. After that, I realized that this guy is absolutely insane and pure evil. I was very disappointed to see that he still had a job at the end of the book. I don't. It's the nutty bin for him. And yet there isn't a single piece of objectivist fan fiction out there. Does anyone else find that at all weird, considering how it ended?

The real question is not of how well does it work, but of weather or not it's moral. Government regulation - at all - is immoral. How can you possibly defend the government stepping in and telling you what you can and cannot do with YOUR private property? It belongs to you, it's yours, I can't just barge in and tell you what to do with it. How come the men in suits calling themselves "The Government" can? The same goes for taxes. It's your money, you worked hard, you made it, it's YOURS. Why should the government be able to take it from you with or without your consent? They'd arrest me for barging in your house and taking your money. Why aren't they considered criminals? Because you don't call them that? In that case, if I don't call Hitler a dictator, does that mean he isn't? I'm getting a little off point. The point is that the Government has no right to tell you what to do with your private property. If you want to demand 20 hours of work each day, and pay 2 cents an hour, and hire 2 year olds, fine. It's your business. It's going to collapse, but it's your business. Why can the government tell you what to do with it? Why? And even more - if the government represents the people, by extension, YOU are telling people what they can and can't do in their businesses. Why do you have that right? It's not your business, you aren't creating the value, you aren't making the money or making the product - why do you have the right to boss him around?

http://falmouthschools.org/ It hasn't been built yet, the concept of a new elementary school was recently voted on (yes), but I think it's going to be great. I really like the design - and I've seen the floor plans, there isn't an extra meter of space beyond what is needed to accommodate the rooms.

No Compromise!