Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nochrieaz

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  1. It's starting: http://www.youtube.com/user/Garmoco (If it's any consolation, it's fun to witness the power of the human mind to predict things once their essentials are understood).
  2. Tonight, on CBS nightly news, of the 116 banks which took TARP funds, they singled out BB&T CEO Allison in a report about how - apparently - there has been widespread abuse of what I guess the MSM believes were clearly defined spending guidlines because banks have been buying other banks with the tax money. They broadcast an out of context quote from Allison that was from one of the BB&T's board meetings. It was something to the effect of "... well, this money is a relatively inexpensive way to raise capital." I found it quite frightening that, of all of the allegedly hypocritica
  3. House is not a second hander, but he isn't a flawless man stuck in a flawed world either. All that "he" is is a constantly refreshing, never ending personification of the, to use Gina Gorlin's phrase from her article, "reason-emotion dichotomy" message put across by his creators. A real person's life does not play itself in losely connected 60 minute episodes. A real person would never be able to retain his exceptional rationality if he were afflicted with House's emotional disorders for years and years. If the joy he felt (but curiously never shows) from solving a medical question could
  4. They're doing exactly the same thing the Kelleyites do, it's just one step removed. I'll repeat: what good is a government run entirely by Objectivists when the culture is still altruist-collectivist? How, exactly, is getting a politician who is already in power to become an Objectivist any different than getting a politician who is trying to get into office to become an Objectivist? And besides, given his *necessary* aversion to principled (even rationalistically held principles) which got him into office, wouldn't it be easier to grow your own candidates? These are honest questions.
  5. KendallJ, In regards to the part of my second post which you had no idea about, what I did there was to explain (through example) how the distinction you made directly above your quotation of it is false. Yes, David Kelley will compromise his ideas in order to get into power. He's already tried it and fortunately failed. What I'm wondering is how the ARCIR's tactic of getting the right ideas to people in power does not compromise those ideas. Certainly the ideas themselves do not change, and the righteousness of any offical or policy maker working to implement them is without question
  6. From The Ayn Rand Institutue's website. "About ARI" Section, "Overview" page, Introduction (Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4): The terms "elected officials" and "policy makers" are both conspicuously absent. Assembling a cabal of "elected officials" and "policy makers" to foist Objectivist political principles onto the public with the explanation "because I said so" is somehow less of a seperation of philosophical fundamentals from their resultant values than wrongly and desperately exclaiming that freedom of the press is a self-evident value that can "transcend religious and cultural d
  7. Don't confuse omnicience with incompetence. How were you to know how long it would take to perform a task you, nor anyone readily accessible to ask, had performed before. I wouldn't even call it a mistake. Now, if you determine (as it seems you have) that there is no practical (ie: efficient) reason for this extra task to become part of your job description, and yet you fail to ensure that it is kept as part of the warehouse guy's, and assuming your boss is open to reasoned argument, then I would say you were being incompetent. Furthermore, if you attempt all of that and still remain
  8. Yes, he said that. He also said (at least implicitly) that the bank steals from everyone. He said that when he advocated a prohibition on FRB on the basis of it being theft. If the depositors consent to be "stolen" from, then if not them, someone else must be the victim for it to still constitute theft.
  9. Mr. McKeever's main complaint against private FRB is that by issuing currency which does not represent actual wealth, that bank is stealing the wealth of everyone else in the nation (via inflation). What he fails to realize is that he is looking at the issue through a very contemporary lens. One in which the inflation of the money supply - by a government run central bank - does constitute theft. However, in a free economy - one in which banks issue their own currency - it quite literally is none of my business what two other people (the banker and his creditor) do. If I do not hold cu
  10. From The Center's new website (bold mine): Elected officials? Policy makers? Why would people like Yaron Brook and Leonard Peikoff - who have for years been saying that to engage in any form of Objectivism-promoting activism beyond the intellectual kind is counter-productive and even dangerous - put their names behind this new wing of the ARI? Why put this center in Washington, DC? Isn't this tantamount to doing what David Kelly and his ilk have been doing for years now, albeit in a far more begrudged, drawn out, and subtle way? Is the leadership of the ARI finally taking Kelly's
  11. What to say about this piece? The New York Times said that it made too big of a deal out of September 11th.
  12. The Founding Fathers believed heavily in what they called "natural law." That is: identity and causality. That A is A and there's no getting around it. The purpose of the entire Constitution is a means of "regulating" the government. Of keeping it bound by natural law - one of these laws being the individual's "God given rights." That these rights, on a metaphysical level, can never be taken away - that they are a part of him. That it is "right" for a man to be free. It is "right" for a man to own property, etc. They can be violated, sure, but by violating them a wrong is not made a ri
  13. The appropriate (read: egoist) way to approach this question is to ask yourself which is more important to you: a book or law and order? By never returning the book you have declared, implicitly and by precedent, war against the government. Now, logic would tell us that if a government is so out of control that guerilla warfare is a man's only recourse, there are certainly more important governmental targets than a book inside a library. Taking that book and never returning it violates a rational man's hierarchy of values. Like I said, it places some minor, incidental knowledge above (al
  14. I agree with the environmentalists in this thread that the Earth has a natural balance. That's precisely why I'm not worried about anything humans are doing. If even the most dire predictions by environmentalists about the effects of unregulated production are correct, what will that mean for humanity? Well, frankly, mass death. First the sky will fall and the seas will boil. Then the plants and animals will die out. Then people will die from new diseases and starvation. When that happens, there will be fewer people producing as much as they possibly can; but not threatening the environ
  15. The guy is basically saying "Don't expose to me the essence of what I am advocating. Help me pretend that duty-oriented ethics is the just as respectable as value-oriented ethics by giving it your 'consent'" Like John Galt explained, some times the best way to defeat evil is to comply with it fully. The quote you provided would be funny if you hadn't informed me that he is putting over this trick on young, impressionable minds who won't know that all of his empty rhetoric about independent thought is just that; rhetoric.
  • Create New...