Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Inertiatic

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 05/14/1993

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Interested in meeting
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
  • School or University
    Just a high schooler
  • Occupation
    I want to be a writer

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    I'll write this later.
  1. Because, long-term, I have to feed my soldiers.
  2. This is perhaps the most true thing I've ever seen:
  3. North Korea Launches a Missile (Sorry I got it from Yahoo!, but it was the first place I saw it.) All the tension we and apparently South Korea, Japan, and, surprisingly, China have with North Korea reminds me of pre-World War One Europe, especialy the Balkan region. I could be off, though. Either way, this piece of news is scary. But don't worry, guys, the UN is on its way to stop the bad guys! I'm certain they'll figure out how to fix this mess, just like they always do! Hey--here's an idea for them: make South Korea, Japan, and China give all of their missiles to North Korea. That oughta show 'em.
  4. The problem is a regular Ship of Theseus--at what point are we giving in to evil, rather than just bearing a large burden? It's tough to use fictional characters here, because they are acting in the context of how life ought to be, rather than how it is. Were we to act similarly to Galt, Roark, and Ragnar, we'd fail and suffer heavy penalties In response to the question "do our principles end where a gun begins" I'd have to say, "Everything you do beyond the point where a weapon is introduced is in self-defense." You just have to remember one thing: it's you versus the White House. If I was one to gamble, I'd have to admit I'd put my money on the White House. Yes, you have an obligation to protect yourself, but remember that you're defending yourself against a country that isn't adverse to the use of nuclear weapons. Pursuing an antagonistic course here is, I think, a bit too suicidal to be called rational (at least, for right now. Once we reach that point I mentioned above, though, we morally have to revolt. See: the American Revolution). When I mentioned that nobody wants to pay taxes, I meant "right now". As in, I don't want to pay MANDATORY taxes, but I'm fine with VOLUNTARY ones. (Which raises an interesting question: is it practical for a new country to make taxes voluntary from the get-go, or does it make sense to have a short period of mandated taxes to get the government on its feet before gradually making taxes optional?) As for my questions, I was just being a jerk, which was why I apologized. I just like to wonder about road laws. You have to remember that the government extorted the money they used to build the roads, extort money to keep them running, and are, by owning them, breaking one of the rules of the government, because the ownership of roads doesn't have anything to do with using force to protect citizens from the use of force or fraud. But I could be wrong. In any case, please ignore my questions. Again, I'm sorry. But if you want a good discussion question, I'll try again: Say that taxes are in fact voluntary, and the government actually has a surplus of monies. The government is a good one, and only pays for its police force and military, along with the meager salaries of its officials. Simply: assume it is the ideal government. With this surplus money given willingly by the people, can the government set up a board that gathers unbiased data about products to give a factual report to the public? Imagine an FDA that doesn't regulate anything, just gathers data about a product after it is put on the market and makes it (the information) available to anyone who wants it. This doesn't have to do with protecting citizens from the use of force, so is it legal? Can the definition of the government's duties be expanded to include free public services paid for by legally obtained money? Although this question could actually be an easy one.... (Edited for clarity, and to remove a "6".)
  5. Robot Scientist Making Discoveries If it isn't thinking, what IS it doing?
  6. The quote from Rand that applies perfectly here has already been used, so I'll try a different argument: Would you rather go to jail than pay taxes? Or rather, would you rather sacrifice ALL of your freedoms just because one (oops, did I say "one"?) of them has been taken from you? Nobody wants to pay taxes. At least, I should think nobody does. But we all do, because we'd rather give up some money than spend years in a dank cell somewhere, being especially careful not to drop the soap. People came in with guns and said, "Some of all of the money you make is going to Hobo Ted." You had less guns, and no votes. This is not a compromise, because we're dealing with force here. "Morality ends where a gun begins," after all. Had we a say in any governmental affair at all, would we be paying taxes? Besides, I'm not misanthropic enough to prefer going to jail over paying some taxes. The IRS is always laughably insane, anyway. NEW QUESTION: Are we compromising our freedom when we obey speed limits? Or are we just ensuring our safety? Or are we just hoping to avoid blame if we get in an accident? Hm... (Sorry. I just couldn't resist.)
  7. It's times like these I wish all computers were equipped with the irony mark. Me? On a gov'ment list? I'm that much of a threat? Amusing. More than likely someone didn't get what I was saying, said, "Whatever, crazy," and hit the delete button. As long as somebody read it. Now, what to say about environmentalism...? Haha.
  8. Dear Mr. President, I have been following the course the government has been taking in the last few years and have compared that with what you have said that you will do in the next few years with the greatest of interest. Through all of the doubletalk I have noticed a relatively common pattern and I have, in my readings from various cultures, found a solution that I think might solve the country’s- no, the entire world’s- problems: similar to A Modest Proposal, I suggest that we eat the elderly (rather than children). Most of the elderly are on welfare, slowly sapping the money of the taxpayers while spending little and unvaryingly, and without jobs with which to create something. Therefore, money is being poured into a massive, rusty drain, showing little return. The money saved by the taxpayers that actually work for a living or are contributing faithfully to their 401(k)s would improve the economy to an unimaginably greater degree than the old. But imagine the benefits the new welfare would bring: 1. There are increasing amounts of families going hungry, and, as it has been found that humans taste better with age, would be receiving quality and nutritious food, rather than the gross bare essentials provided by food stamps. Each senior citizen could, with some rationing, last a family of four for about a week and a half, and would therefore last longer than a loaf of bread or a bowl of soup. 2. As the elderly drain large amounts of good, useful land with retirement homes and houses they refuse stoutly to leave, the now-open houses would increase the amount of available property and could be sold for low prices to homeless or extremely cramped families. The retirement centers/nursing homes/hospices could be torn down and be used in negotiations to build wind farms and solar power plants and nuclear power plants. The air would be effectively sucked out of that bubble…! 3. Senior citizens are deadly drivers, and therefore the roads would be made much safer. There are laws existing that forbid one from being drunk and driving or high and driving but not senile and driving, which poses a safety hazard for all safety-conscious and still street-legal drivers on the road. This would also reduce gas consumption considerably, and would lower demand, increasing supply, and causing prices to fall. 4. Those most adamantly against any change, good or bad, are generally older people. They remain steadfast in their views, never pausing to question them and find out what principle they are acting on, allowing the country to fall deeper into ruin. “We shouldn’t get rid of antitrust laws because they’ve always been there….” Needless tradition, carried on to what avail? Economic and cultural ruin. Practically, slaughtering the elderly and feeding them to the hungry is much better than redistribution of funds. It’s more of a redistribution of flesh and organs, so to speak. When one turns sixty, they must be tagged, and when they turn sixty-five, their names are entered into a computer system that randomly distributes the living sustenance to those on the welfare list. Because it is random, it is possible for those with their names in the computer to actually live until they meet their eventual and inescapable demise. So there’s still hope for them. Also, those in the slaughtering industry would receive a healthful boost, as well as meat packaging companies. Demand on formaldehyde and other embalming materials would decrease, making funerals cheaper. A few industries would weaken considerably, but they are negligible ones. The past is done and over with. We need to think of the future- and how better to do that than by removing anyone who can remember the past? As welfare money will no longer be an issue, the problem is how to make sure there will be enough registered senior citizens with which to feed a hungry family. Well, this is simple: no one has to know exactly what age the person they’re eating was. You’re the government: you can tweak the numbers. The one major problem would be in getting the headstrong and emotional voters to agree with this extremely rational and practical viewpoint. So another option is to, similar to Romans and their gladiators, invade other countries and seize their senior citizens, and maybe their governments, too. After all, we are eating the elderly in the name of freedom, and any country that does not do likewise is an enemy of freedom and therefore an enemy of the United States of America. (See: the Vietnam War) A lot of society’s problems could be solved or made more bearable with this simple step in a nation’s development. While other countries continue to fumble with cumbersome and annoying monarchies and dictators, we shall have a youthful nation under our iron fingertips. They’ll see what freedom brings…! I thank you for your time and look forward to the very first dinner in the White House in which the main course is an elder statesman. Respectfully yours, Concerned Citizen
  9. I'd join. Sounds fun. I'd love to work with people who write similarly to me AND with people who work opposite. All the more fun- plus, you learn more that way. I WOULD create the mailing list myself if I had the time, but unfortunately I don't. Plus, I'd need a little more to go on. Like, what do you mean by "activism"? How does that apply to fiction? I'm not sire I follow. My writing is more of an implicit than explicit philosophy. Good for activism? No. Good for reading? Yes. Well, I'm interested. I'd like to discuss it a little more beforehand, but it sounds like fun so far.
  10. (Don't know if this is in the right place, but....) Link: PETA wants to rename fish "sea kittens" Oddly, I think I'd find fish more appetizing if they WERE renamed. It's just too bad I can't stand the taste of sea kittens. That cute little picture on the article I linked to looks pretty appetizing, though....
  11. My school actually played his speech while I was in lunch. His oppressive voice boomed down from a spot I couldn't pinpoint in the ceiling. I couldn't hear it, but I didn't have to. Yesterday was sickening. All I heard of the speech was the part where he blamed greed for the ills of the economy. That pretty much said it all.
  12. Over the past few years, I've made fun of the man America put in the White House two (though I say four) times, insulting his low intelligence. I must admit, I am the owner of two magnets, one of which depicts Bush at the Pope's funeral and thinking "What happened to Santa?" But recently I realized that George W. Bush is a political GENIUS. He is an evil mastermind. In order to "protect the free market", he passed laws that made sure that the market was anything but free. Systematically, he destroyed economic freedoms. Control after control was passed. But, according to the president- we still had a free market! So, what is John Q. Citizen to think? "Well, if this is a free market, it's obviously not working, what with the second-worst stock market crash in history. So, we had better head towards socialism/communism/welfare statism/fascism."- And all of this, without knowing that a free market never existed. Eight years set us back one hundred. Pure evil genius.
  13. It's one thing to say something, then act completely opposite of it. For example: George W. Bush- WHAT HE SAID: "I will protect the free market." WHAT HE DID: Destroyed the free market. Employers hire employees based on character, as that's really all they have to go by. However, employers don't have that leeway. If they go into business, they have to make sure they can handle it, or because of them, the entire project will fail. The President is more of an employer than employee. Sure, he "gets" a job, but really, he's the boss. What I gathered from the topic was that it was judging the president by how they acted as president. Therefore, I could call my favorite president the worst president in my above list (yes, I am a fan of James K. Polk's). (I don't really know how to end this post, so I'll just stop it here.)
  14. I suppose you're right. I think I looked at it out of context and said, "Hey wait, didn't Theodore Roosevelt use this to springboard his own warmongering campaigns?" And he did- see The Roosevelt Corollary. So I struck it against Monroe. Obviously, I am horribly incorrect. I'll fix it- thanks for pointing that out! But as for Monroe, do you think the Missouri Compromise would be a negative? My source doesn't really have much else for me to go on.
  • Create New...