Devils_Advocate
-
Posts
241 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Devils_Advocate
-
-
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'm not gonna lie, I do find her attractive in that sort of dark way. I know she's not the most physically attractive person to walk the Earth, but something about her that's beautiful.
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.
-
Thanks, that means a lot, sincerely. That is actually a song from a CD I completed in '05, a hip-hop album. Since then I've moved my aesthetic focus towards more melodic stuff and I'm working on my singing technique. I think the current stuff is a better projection of my sense of life, but lyrically I think this one makes a better theme song
I've been meaning to put something up about the CD, seems to do pretty well as a christmas gift. You can get the CD here or download it on itunes
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).
French singer Alizee:
Allison Mack, actress.
Emma Watson is gorgeous too. Perfect body shape.
-
Pretty damn interesting! Maybe it'll start something like..."Mr. Liddy will not speak to you today. His time is up. I have taken it over. You were to hear a report on the world crisis. That is what you are going to hear."
"My name is Yaron Brook. You are probably asking, 'Who the hell is Yaron Brook?'"
-
-
Some people here act like Obama is going to get sworn in and immediately march over to the National Archives where he will proceed to tear up the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the thunderous roar of a crowd millions.
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!
-
Why would they conclude that when Obama's socialist agenda didn't work out?
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.
-
*A very old man enters a grocery store and says: "I'd like to buy everything in your store," and puts down a very large amount of money.
Ok, says the shopkeeper, but how will you get it home."
I don't want to take it home," says the man, "I want you to leave it just where it is, and if anybody comes to buy anything, give it to them free."
The shop assistant agrees and the old man sits on a bench outside the store and watches. A few customers go in and come out looking extremely happy. Soon the store is mobbed and within fifteen minutes, it is a pile of rubble. The old man continues to sit on the bench, dirty, but smiling and happy. The ravaged shopkeeper walks up and asks him, "Why did you do it? My shop is a ruin?"
Well, I'm very old, and I know I won't live to see true communism," says the man. "I just wanted to see what communism would look like."
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.
-
Is this just a conspiracy theory, or is there reason to believe that these men caused wars, depressions, etc?
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.
-
I think you're right—and i find that annoying (not that you're right, but the point you made). What do these people expect? That we, as students, are somehow not allowed to draw conclusions on anything? My philosophy instructor this past semester was the same way. It's as if we, as students, are too intellectually incompetent to coherently form any cognitive thought or conclusions. We simply have to swallow whatever conclsuions THEY spoon-feed us.
I shouldn't be surprised. After all, this is a "diversity" class. That hardly strikes me as something where conclusions are allowed. We simply have to love everyone equally and accept everyone equally and believe everything equally and equal equally so our equal equalities show the equalness of being equal.
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.
-
James Taggart is probably one of the best villains in literature. Of course, by "best" I mean the most depraved, backwards, and savage. It's funny, though- it took me the whole novel until I actually managed to pin him as "THE ANTAGONIST". Then I reflected on it and realized- "Oh my goodness, he was there when EVERYTHING bad happened! He's the villain!"
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.
Anyone else here think that Taggart might be able to correct his contradictions and move on?I don't. It's the nutty bin for him.
His final chapter is very similar to Eddie Willers's. He could either be saved by the Strikers or he could be left to die. His story isn't fully resolved, and , I don't think, nearly as resolved as Eddie's.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?
-
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.
-
I was under the impression that Objectivism was a little more pragmatic than this. For example, Piekoff writes at one point in OPAR that you ought not oppose a professor in class if they will punish you for it. What exactly is the logic behind the position you take in the above quote?
No Compromise!
-
My whole point -which I'm still trying to formulate- is that there's got to be a reason for not adopting Capitalism. By reason, I mean, there's got to be a value we're not taking into the equation. Disregard the irrationality, and the special interests that prevent a free market for arising, nevermind the culture, there is the sense of security, order and cleanliness that offers itself as a value that many buy at an unknown price.
"It's because they're STUPID! That's why anyone does anything!! Because they're STUPID!!!" -Homer Simpson
The Woman Thread
in Beauty
Posted
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: