Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jedymastyr

  1. Hello. I've been reading around the forums for awhile and figure I should introduce myself. My real name is Chad Mills, and I'm going to school at the University of Arizona (UA) in Tucson, AZ. I'm studying electrical engineering and computer science. I've completed 2 of my 4 years of undergrad, but I'm going to grad school afterward, so I don't plan on getting out of school any time soon. My parents and several friends live in Phoenix, so I tend to go back there most weekends. Objectivism-related things: Next year I'll be president of the UA Student Objectivist Society, and I'm currently taking classes at the OAC. I've read most of Rand's work, though I skipped around a lot while reading the "magazine"-type publications (TON, The Objectivist, Ayn Rand Letter). Other stuff: I'm interested in science and history, although I don't have extensive knowledge in either field (I'm working on it ). I also like Alanis Morissette (Baba, in particular), the number 47, monkeys, and the color blue. ObjectivismOnline.net looks like a great place, so I look forward to seeing you around.
  2. if you happen to find that one-paragraph-per-page thing annoying (perhaps I'm just not using the site correctly), you can find the full text on one page here: http://www.gutenberg.net/1/plpwr10.txt
  3. I would like to clarify, in case I was misunderstood: Voting for a person would add one point to the candidate's score. Voting against a person would subtract one point from that candidate's score. You pick one--vote for one candidate or vote against one candidate. If I understand _The Onion_ article, by voting "against Bush" they mean voting for Kerry as normal, and vise-versa. I think there's an important difference: voting for one candidate and voting against the other candidate are two different things, and should be treated as such. If you don't want to support any of the candidates, but one stands out as more evil than the others, it would be nice to be able to vote against the worst one without any implication of moral acceptance of any other. -- Also, thanks for your comment Capitalism Forever.
  4. I choose not to vote. It's obvious why I won't vote for the Green party. The Republicans are religious in nature, support bans on abortion (even Constitutional?), send AIDS money to Africa, and pass up Iran and North Korea for Iraq... The Democrats support ethnic tribalism/racism with policies like affirmative action (or watered-down versions like Michigan last summer). As a white male college student, this is particularly annoying. Their foreign policies are disasterous Either of the two major political parties violate fundamental rights (abortion, government-sponsored racism, failure to adequately defend the country). I feel that supporting either party is endorsing a major evil. The Libertarian party has some good deregulation goals. However, if Libertarian ideals were actualized and failed (which is likely), it would destroy the momentum of the movement and be counterproductive in the long run. There is a limit to the clothes pin vote, and in my opinion the potential political parties all go beyond it. What I think would be helpful is to implement a new system of voting. Instead of picking a candidate to vote for, a voter could choose to vote for or against one candidate. This way, one could better the plight of the "lesser of the two evils" without sanctioning him directly. It would be nice to "vote down" the most evil, thereby being both practical [getting the "more logical" view(s) supported] and moral [not endorsing evil]. In addition, it would make obvious possible discontent in the political system. Other countries have systems where a certain percentage of the votes is required to get elected, with run-offs, and I think that would go along with this.
  5. AIM: jedymastyr Yahoo: jedymastyr I'm rarely ever on yahoo, but AIM's pretty much always on
  6. I agree. I also have a question about this. Most dictionaries have a lot of poor definitions and illegitimate concepts. Does anyone know if there has ever been an Objectivist attempt to create a dictionary that defines words in terms of their essentials (including the omission or note of "invalid concepts")?
  7. I just found a first edition copy of Philosophy: Who Needs It? (hardcover) I found an auction on ebay with a picture of the back of the title page: auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...ssPageName=WDVW up close picture of back of title page: http://imagehost.vendio.com/bin/viewimage....&pt=bidpay&sp=0 Now this is my question... The copy I bought had a slightly different back of the title page. As said in the auction, mine also has a $15.95 price on the dust jacket, but the copyright lines are significantly different. In the ebay auction image, the copyright information is on the line directly above "All rights reserved," and then there is another blank line above it, and then the Leonard Peikoff, Executor line above that. On my copy, though, the title page is exactly the same but the two copyright lines are different. The first line is identical in text and formatting, and the second copyright line has a capital INTRODUCTION COPYRIGHT instead of just a capital COPYRIGHT. In addition, instead of being in dark text printed on the page, it appears lighter than the rest, almost as if it was stamped on. Additionally, the two lines are one right after the other (no blank in between), and there is about 3 blank lines under it (but above the All rights reserved line). Also, the copyright symbols © are smaller and appear superscripted. I don't currently have a scanner as I'm in a temporary location over summer in college, and I have my stuff distributed between this temp location and my parent's house in a city a couple miles away. I can provide a scan if it would be helpful in about a week and a day or so, I think, but I've tried to be as descriptive as possible. All the text is the same, but it appears to be some sort of a stamp, and is definitely lighter and different. I was just wondering if anyone knew anything about this. It really isn't that important, I just bought the book because I wanted it, and I was wondering if anyone had a clue what was up with it.
  • Create New...