Sarrisan

You would have to ask Ayn Rand (Something we unfortunately cannot do). Ayn Rand never gave her reasons, as far as I know, for her opinions on homosexuality. All we have is an off-handed comment from an informal Q & A session -- hardly anything at all. You could perhaps ask "As an Objectivist, what is your opinion on Homosexuality? And if it is a negative one, why?" No one can presume to know what Ayn Rand thought, except perhaps her closest friends, and I am not aware of any of them extrapolating upon her thoughts in this area.

I believe the statement was meant to be poetic, not philosophical. Also, didn't she mention in that interview that it wasn't her phrase, but rather a quote from some unnamed Greek philosopher?

I believe so. The Carson Interview. I think there is a thread here somewhere where it was discussed.

I believe so. The Carson Interview. I think there is a thread here somewhere where it was discussed.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you implying that transgendered people do have special rights? In that case, what special rights? And why are those rights more important than my rights? What gives them the right to enslave me with government force?

Why would he have to renounce his self interest? Just as a soldier chooses his profession because he likes the work, or sees the value of defending a free country, so a politician can selfishly choose the job because he enjoys doing it or else values the proper government of his country. Could you expand upon what you mean by politicians necessarily needing to be altruists?

I think you'll find that most people here will not mention race at all. Skin color, ethnicity, etc, are irrelevant in judging a person. The fact that you placed undue importance on the matter is probably what rubbed people here the wrong way. "Obama is black" is not an Objectivist criticism of the man. "Obama is evil" would probably be more accurate.

As I understand it, voting for a candidate is not giving him your sanction or your moral support, as long as you continue advocate against his ideas afterward. The President of the United States is an important role, and though we should do whatever we can to fill it with good candidates, we have to pick the least-worse one when given the chance. Simply revoking your vote entirely, while poetic, is irresponsible because then you have no say in you becomes your ruler. Voting Libertarian is basically the same thing (Unless, by some miracle, a Libertarian candidate gains a snowball's chance in hell of winning). Therefore, since they have no real political power, and their ideas are similarly bankrupt, they have absolutely nothing to offer Objectivism.

If your story must have a perfectly rational hero with few or little internal conflicts, then look for other ways to make him interesting. Simple things like eccentricities, hobbies, or or a way of speaking can add flavor to a boring character. Being rational does not mean you abandon personality. Everyone has their own sense-of-life, their own interests, and their own little qwerks. Find a few that make your character interesting to read about. Also, if your main character is somewhat boring, try adding lots of other characters that are not perfectly rational, and who have their own conflicts, many of which perhaps with your main character.

It's more of a grand-strategy game than an RTS. The RTS element only comes in when you fight in battles, the rest of it is done in turn-based format on a large map of the world. Having said that, if Empire is anything like Rome, than the battles will be the high-point of the game.

Interesting -- it seems economical concerns are more important in this iteration of the series. In Rome, the economy consisted of; 1: conquer province. 2: use government funds to build bath houses and stadiums and temples to keep the people from revolting. 3: tax the the living hell out of inhabitants ( secondary: Build another statue to keep them happy) 4: use taxes to raise more troops to conquer another province. 5: repeat... If Empire has a system that is more engrossing than this, then I will be quite happy. EDIT: Also, could you expand upon the "taxes limiting growth" bit you mentioned? It always bothers me in empire-type games that you can tax the pants off of your inhabitants, and as long as they are pacified with various social projects, trade and overall economic growth would not be effected at all. Typical economic fallacy, I suppose, but it would be nice to see a game where the economy was shrunk in the long-term if you pursued byzantine tax policies.

I've sadly yet to play Empire, but I am a long-time fan of Rome: Total War. I am curious, what are the changes that Empire embodies that make it seem an embodiment of Capitalism? I sure didn't see anything like that in Rome, so it must be a new feature.

There have been numerous threads on this issue already -- perhaps a mod would like to merge this with those? As for me, I am not an expert on this subject, but here is my take on it. Man, alone, is not able to create nearly as many values as a group. He can do a fine job at it, and for some people perhaps even find contentment, but in the end mere survival is probably all that he'll attain. On the other hand, if he moves to a city of individuals, he has access to hundreds, thousands, even millions of other individuals who themselves create values. Now, to take advantage of these other values, he has, basically, two venues open to him -- he can use force to get them, or he can use reason. Now, if he uses force (And assuming he has the power to do what he wants without reprisal), then he can find himself inundated with riches. But after a little while, it will all be gone -- spent, or used up. The people who created those values are now either dead, have fled, or refuse to be used as slaves. So, now the looter is left with nothing -- and, never having learned to use his mind in the first place, he will probably die because he no longer has anyone else to mooch off of. On the other hand, if he uses reason -- i.e., he took the values he created himself, and traded them for the values of others, he will not immediately find himself flowing in riches. But he will find that the people around him will continue to trade their values for his, and if he finds some values that are worth enough to many other people, he will find himself with far more riches, both physical and intellectual, than he could ever steal. And, through mere association with so many minds, he will find himself enriched by their values by proxy. And that's not even accounting the profound psychological effects of achieving your values through the simple sweat of your mind and brow. EDIT: Man, that sounds rationalistic... Grames answer above is far better, I think, though perhaps could be expounded upon a bit.

The problem is, what if it is a crime that you believe shouldn't exist? A crime which you believe violates your rights? In that case you may do the crime, hide it, and still be psychologically healthy because you are convinced of your righteousness. Perhaps you could make the argument that all lies are essentially a rejection of reality, but I don't believe that either. Context is extremely important in these kinds of questions.

That link is broken... you forgot to add the (dot) suffix. Also, It is exactly for your experiences that I think it's best to never try to "teach" kids Objectivism. Some may understand more than others, but for the most part it's always better the wait until they've grown and had some life experience.