the tortured one

I was reading a book called "the birth of plenty" (good book, says the emergence of prosperity is due to capital markets, scientific rationalism, transportation and communication, and property rights) when I came across an interesting snippet. Everyone knows The famous line "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but what I personally didnt know was the original quote was not from the founding fathers, it was from John Locke, whose actual quote was "life, liberty, and estate" so why did Jefferson feel compelled to change "estate" to "pursuit of happiness" wouldn't estate be more condusive to the capitalist ideal, rather then "pursuit of happiness" which the looters and moochers have hid behind as an excuse to rob others of their wealth?

I wasn't implying the war itself was trivial, i was implying that the difference between Bush and Kerry's war plan is trivial.

"Guns kill people? what kind of crap is that? I should sue Hustler magazine for giving me carpal tunnel syndrom! thats like blaiming pencils for bad handwriting." ~Larry the cable guy I apologize for not reading the thread in it's entirety, i'm kind of strapped for time and only read the intro post. "but what will stop people from getting Atomic weapons!" is a traditional cry of the gun-control nuts. people wonder if complete freedom will cause people to gather force which would usurp the authority of the government. But consider the economics of building such an army. Migs and Tanks cost hundreds of millions of dollars, if you are looking at the crappy end of the stick. To get a fighter plane worthy of even having a chance of taking an american plane you'd need to spend at least half a billion dollars. and thats a plane that doesn't have any of the military's sophisticated classified technology. Not to mention you'll need to spend an additional several million dollars for ordinance and fuel. And after all that you're gonna need a pilot, with hundreds of hours of flight time and training. And after all that, you've got one plane, and one pilot. That single plane now has to go against the worlds most sophisticated technology in the world, the best planes, the best materials, and the finest pilots that money and patriotism can buy. and not only that, but there are nearly 400 fighter planes owned by the U.S. Not even Bill Gates could fund such a project. Tanks? repeat that whole thing over again, only substitute planes for tanks. You need a high strength HEAT round to even penetrate an Abram's armor. Iraqi tanks didn't take out a single Abram in the entire war, our only casualties were blown tracks and the occasional friendly fire. Nuclear weapons? If Al-Quieda and all their ties to black market resources like nuclear scientists and plutonium can't gather the resources to build a bomb, what makes you think someone in the U.S can? Only the richest countries in the world can afford nuclear weapons. Besides, if someone was building a bomb with the intent to use it, do you think he would care if the government said "no one can build nuclear weapons"? Do you think that person will be walking down the street saying "hey everybody, guess what i'm building!?" and finally, what of the dangers of caches of assault weapons? first of all, do you really think that simple laws is gonna stop paramilitaries from getting these weapons? they don't. The only thing gun laws do is make collecting guns by gun enthusiasts a pain in the ass. Organized crime still makes heavy use of assault weapons, the assault weapon ban did little to stop that. And if indeed a group of separists seize property, they have to contend with American national guardsmen, who wear Kevlar capable of stopping an AK round and are equiped with the most sophisticated weapons in the world (ever studied the land warrior project? the OICW weapon has a camera mounted on the top, allowing the soldier to shoot around corners!) all in all, there is not much a small group of revolutionaries can do to threaten the soverienty of the united states. If Saddam Huissen and his fanatical followers couldn't even dent the American war machine, a group of yokels from Frogballs, Arkansas isn't going to pose too much of a threat.

isn't supply-side economics that the Republicans embrace as equally immoral as the theft from the democrat party? I mean i'd be hardpressed to find an objectivist who supports social security, but how is that any more moral then giving stolen wealth to big corporations? I find republicanism just as dangerous as socialism. Which is why i have no intention of voting for Bush. however, democratic stifling of progress is socialism, just sugarcoated as "compassion for the little guy" or other nonesense. before i post, i want to bring to attention something that is bothering me. As a southerner I find the modern perception of the confederacy disgusting, just another effort by statist government to cover it's tracks. The Southern Rebellion had nothing to do with Slavery, though you might not know that given the incredible bias of historical textbooks. It was about State's rights, and Northern condescending. They did not go to war because of "dem yanks is tryin' to take our N----r's away!" Slavery wasn't even an issue in the war until the emancipation proclaimation, when the north claimed the moral high ground. The only port in America still importing slaves was in the North, even Charleston did not import slaves anymore. Only the very richest plantation owners owned slaves, and slavery as an institution had been declining since the country's inception. It was the free market, not the underground railroad who was aiding in this decline. Everyone has seen Glory and knows of the black regiments who fought for the north. Ever heard of the numerous black southern regiments who fought the North because they honestly felt their rights were being infringed upon, or the black plantation owners who lost everything when Sherman's army marched through the South wantonly burning and looting like a pack of thugs? And finally, the Southern sessation was a peaceful withdrawl, they threw up their hands and said "we're out", the battle of Fort Sumter occured when the union started reinforcing their position in the fort after we had asked them to leave. The first shots of the war were fired by Citadel cadets firing on the supply runner "Star of the West." The union had been supplying arms to the fort, the Star was transporting large stocks of food for intended long term commitment. No one was killed, either in the firing on the Star or in the actual battle.

It seems that the topic on everyone's mind is the war. Not necessarily in this forum, but everywhere, their habit of voting is based on their perception of the war on terror, or other trivial matters. I know someone who is voting Kerry simply because Kerry is Catholic and that person thinks his Catholic rearing would do the country, and that person's religion, better. But is that our number one threat right now? Terrorists have killed (to be conservative) probably around 4500 americans. But what about the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions who are suffering under the growing strain of big government? Tough anti-gun laws makes rational ownership of guns harder to obtain while doing little to dislodge the illegal gun market. Medical progress has slowed to a crawl, with two concrete walls obstructing them; the FDA's incessant reluctance to accept new drugs, and the threat of a suit, where the slightest error can result in your company's complete destruction by thieving lawyers. The total cost of our un-funded liabilities now exceeds the entire net worth of the United States (the U.S has a net worth of about 43 trillon dollars) Our schools are in shambles, The only institutes with the resources to compete against public schools are churches. Nearly 10,000 dollars per child is spent, more then any other country on Education, but our students consistently rank last in areas like science and Math scheming politicians have siezed nearly half of the health care industry, turning it into the same quagmire plaguing the folks in Europe. Their solution? seize even more. and what has the political parties been doing? they want more money, more funds, more taxes, more theft for the above programs which are all having disatrous results. Don't get me wrong, I love the United States, hell I'm studying to be a soldier in her Army. I am just disturbed about how many parallels I can draw between modern America and the America of Atlas Shrugged. It also disturbs me when I watch government force itself into the business of others then calls it a victory for democracy. Or when Ted Kennedy can get up in the Demo national convention and call Enron the failure of Capitalism (when clearly it was big government that caused that mess, and the free market cleaning it up) For me, I percieve the greatest threat is not terrorists, though they certainly are a priority. I just hope they aren't America's Germanic tribes, where a minor nuisance turns into her captor. So what do you think, do American's have their priorities crossed? Or is there a third threat that I haven't discussed that you feel could potentially result in the downfall of the greatest nation in the history of the world?

The way I see it is this. I am a connesuier of ice cream[objectivist] who wants vanilla with color sprinkles and caramel toppings[objectivist style of living], I go into the ice cream shop[voting booth] and the vendor[punch card] has given me several options; rat poison flavored ice cream[republican party], rattlesnake venom flavored ice cream [democrat party], cyanide flavored ice cream [green party] and vanilla with chocolate sprinkles and chocolate syrup[Libertarian party]. Now I really had my sights set on color sprinkles and caramel toppings, but given the alternatives, I'd say chocolate sprinkles and syrup will have to do. I don't agree with everything every Libertarian said (especially when flakies like Howard Stern has run under the Libertarian ballot) but come on, is there any other political party that wants to reduce government meddling in our lives? For Bush it's rule by theocratic tyranny, and for Kerry it's a socialist (dys)utopia. Nader goes without saying. my second favorite Libertarian remains Gary Nolan. I've met him, he's a fantastic guy who was delighted when I told him about my being an objectivist and understanding the moral necessity of capitalism. favorite? the WWE wrestler who goes by the name "Val Venis" has voiced his approval for libertarian policies. That's just funny when a man who pretends to be a male stripper on television starts rattling off fairly erudite political philosophies (especially when compared to the leftist dominated Hollywood) "Why should smoking dope or drinking beer not be outlawed? " Doesn't having the right to your own body include the right to destroy it? I mean sure if a mother of 5 is smoking crack she is inherintly harming her children, but if a single man living alone wants to ruin his life, what business of the state is it to say he can't? the legalization of drugs does not mean being lawless about it. IF it is harming someone then by all means they need to be punished, but if it is not harming anyone but the user then the state does not need to enact the prohibition. remember, the rate of death directly caused by Marijuana is zero.

problem fixed. I just want to know what fellow objectivists feel about the enviroment, and how such things like ocean pollution can be averted. my problem is that many leftists feel that capitalism does not have the forsight to serve the long term interest of the enviroment. I know that government doesnt do better, but I have never been able to find a very decent capitalist article regarding enviromentalism. a common citation is also the Hoover Dam, which was a public works project and is still publicly operated, but provides the entire city of Las Vegas with energy. What would you say if this came up with a socialist?

This reeks of big government interference and underlaying causes that this website does not address. Drowning in an Ocean of Plastic does anyone know where I can do research on this subject, or perhaps have some information that I could use? thanks.

wow, I feel right at home here! thanks guys, this has been an enlightening post. the way I see it, my opinion is like a hunk of (Reardin:) )metal. full of impurities due to the fact that I have not fully refined my theory. The hammer of socialism pounds away at that hunk, but with each stike, they temper a purer hunk of metal. Eventually, when all the impurities of my opinion have been tempered out, I will have a strong pure hunk of high quality metal, ready to stand up to anything that gets thrown my way. idealistic and kind of silly i know, but it's the best analogy I can come up with I don't presume to know all there is about objectivism, I still have only a basic grasp of the areas of metaphysics and epipstemology, as my area of interest leans more towards the political aspect of objectivism. But hey, that's why I came here

actually, it's up to 80% now. That happens to be one tidbit i know thank you DavidOdden, I am a firm proponent that the best way to stregnthen one's argument is to pit it against other arguements in an equal medium. I usually end up being flamed and called a thuggish pig (further reinforcing my opinion that socialism is an irrational arguement) but nonetheless, the more information I have, the better I feel, so keep it coming guys

This is my first post, so i might as well introduce myself I have been a capitalist all my life. I always felt that theft was wrong regardless. It wasn't until I read Atlas Shrugged that I found my calling as an objectivist. I still support the Libertarian party, even though the two believes are founded on fundamental (but similar) differences. But it sucks when i debate online and I am the only objectivist and I have a debate going against three or four socialists. It's very frustrating because I wanted at least a forum where there are other people with ideals like mine. So I typed objectivist forum in google and I found this site. I hope my time here will be as enlightening as reading an Ayn Rand book. My question is this: In my unending debate with the socialists, Sweden is almost always brought up. Sweden seems to be the poster child for socialism. Universal health care, low unemployment, yada yada yada. I know absolutely nothing about Sweden and any research I attempt only gives me sources telling me how great a place Sweden is to live. So how should I counter the Sweden case? how do you counter anyone who brings up Sweden?