the tortured one

Arcanum I have been meaning to ask about this game. I have always wanted to try this game, but I do not want to buy it unless I know I can expect a good game. How does it play compared to Fallout? or Baldur's Gate? civilization Civ3 is one of those games that makes little sense, but is very addicting to play. It's very limited in some aspects, unnecessarily long in others. Why does it take me 300 years to wage a war with tanks? units do not move fast enough per turn. I wish they'd make the turns slower, like, half or quarter year turns or something. I also don't like the government system. "democracy or communism"? how limiting. Heres to hoping Civ4 will actually break more ground than that. As good as civ3 was, all it really was was a glorified Civ2.

right on the mark, Montesquieu. I am aware of the fact that the Soviet union, and even England to an extent, were held afloat by the awesome power of the united states. But given Nazi aggression and the leftist's love for all things communism, I do not think that the United States would have withdrawn support of the soviets, even if our intention was to let the two beasts tear each other apart. There were too many leftists in America. as for WWI, the U.S's role in the allied victory was undeniable. France was being held afloat by England, who by the time the U.S got involved, had two weeks worth of credit left. I think if we had not gotten involved, a stalemate would have ensured, and a treaty which would have been more amicable towards both sides would have occured, which would have prevented Hitler's rise to power. The reason for his meteoric rise to power was due, in large part, to the terribly shoddy post-war dealings with Germany which left them crippled and in want of a strong leader.

that at a glance sounds like a solid plan, but I think Russia would have come out on top, and would have steamrollered right over Germany and into France, and would have turned the entire European continent red. When you look at the numbers that Hitler and Stalin threw at each other compared to the numbers the other allies threw at them, the difference was staggering. Hitler and Stalin literally had thrown hundreds of divisions at each other. As impressive as D-day was, Hitler thought it was a diversionary force from the real invasion. And from there? probably another round of appealsment until Russia does something to piss even the liberals off, like invade England or something. And that fight would have been a whole hell of a lot harder for us than WWII ever would have been.

isn't it funny how the pieces fall in place? this seriously doesn't surprise me one bit. As I said before, he is an anthropologist writing a historical economics book. what I did like about the book is that it presented a half-decent, researched arguement based on observation and study. I can respect that, even if his conclusions are flawed. It's worth a read if you like to explore and test other ideas. as opposed to people who still believe that free markets cause monopolies and cartels, and that wages and prices have to be controlled for the good of the people

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4229347.stm and yet, there are those who still cling to the ailing belief that Al-Jazeera is simply "the war from another viewpoint"? I wonder if the middle east will ever realize how manipulative this company is. Of course, they probably won't, seeing as how AJ is spoon feeding them everything they want to hear. I'd like to see the left's response if Fox or any other conservative ever tried to pull a stunt like this.

I seem to recall reading this already. But I agree, that was a delightful report.

Jared Diamond wrote GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL How was Conquests and Cultures? I do like economic history books, and I may look for it in my local library if it is that good. my favorite economic historian is Thomas DiLorenzo.

I should have clarified, my mistake. That was my refute of that book. He basically says the reason Europe developed over the rest of the world was because it had all 7 of the world's domesticated animals, good climate, and was relatively isolated. the author writes like he is an anthropologist rather than an economist.

I've read it. He raised some provocative points, but he failed to take human philosophical thought process into play. Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, and Western Europe all developed highly advanced civilizations, but the first one to truly modernize was Europe, due to the influence of the Greek philosophers who championed reason over mysticism. Even that little booger in western development we know as the dark ages did not stop Europe from modernizing faster, with the thanks of rationalists like Thomas Aquinas. But according to his theory, China had just as much natural resources, so theres no reason why China should not have developed as highly as Europe. But China had a philosophy that revolved around the death worship of their emperor, while Europe slowly moved towards liberty and freedom. It was very pragmatic, so take it as you will. If you like economic history books, THE BIRTH OF PLENTY by William Bernstein was decent enough. He outlines the 4 necessary parts to modern human progress: 1. Property rights 2. Scientific rationalism 3. Capital markets 4. Transportation/communications fairly good stuff, though he does admit to certain nuianses concerning government (for example, he argues that the government has been essential for transportation growth) but by large, this is a fairly good read.

Labrat, though I disagree with your assertions that Emperor worship isn't a form of collectivism, I see where you are coming from when you say Socialism and communism aren't original chinese ideas. Those actually have their roots in Kant and Plato. But the point A.West was trying to make is that your culture has an unfortunate history of collectivism, AKA Emperor worship, so was more receptive to Communism than others. Many cultures have bad habits which go back a long way. Spain and the old Spanish colonies, for example, have their roots in Hapsburg mercantilism, which is why Spain remains one of the more economically weaker powers of Europe, and why most of South America remains mired in poverty. The South American countries were also very receptive to communism and welfare statism. By contrast, Britain and her colonies have had a history of free will, and generally resisted the lure of Communism. Though that love for free will is slowly eroding, it will be up to us to preserve that. I am actually of the opinion that one day China may be able to evolve into a system more Capitalistic than any nation before it. I think every nation has that potential. Trust me, I am not a racist. But remember what Ayn Rand once said: Those who fight for the future live in it today.

that sounds to me like it's 100% original. The Christians have been using and living by "the meek shall inherit the Earth" for years.

Batman is practically the Objectivist ideal hero. Not only is he a self-made BILLIONARE (It's like every night, after a hard day at the mills, mild mannered Hank Rearden descends into his cave... and becomes BATMAN!!) he is also a super hero in the sense that his only superpower is his mind. No fancy gimmicks, just years of martial arts training and a utility belt. He uses the power of his mind to overcome adversaries. He doesn't fight crime out of any altruistic sense, but he does it in his own interest, out of his own desire for justice. But then again, I may be biased, because I grew up two houses down from the writer of Batman comics. I used to go there and he would give us all sorts of cool stuff. Heck, he even used one my uncle's name as the name for one of his villians. That and his house was like a gothic styled architexture, and his son was one of my best friends, so going to his house was an adventure for a 9 year old.

I don't know if he qualifies as an Objectivist composer, but I absolutely love Hans Zimmer's composures. His themes to THE ROCK, CRIMSON TIDE, and HUNT FOR THE RED OCTOBER are among my favorite pieces of music ever. So lifelike, so filled with power, such raw emotion. How about his work in THE LION KING? That was the crown jewel of all Disney Animated movies, and one of it's top features was it's amazing, memorable soundtrack... if you can get past Jeremy Irons attempting to sing.

Pericles, no offense, but I think you are just in a bad mood. Place yourself in a historical context. Our fight is Capitalism vs Welfare statism. Think back to the turn of the 20th century, when the fight was between Capitalism and Communism. Not pinko socialism that is flaunted today, but outright bright red 100% communism as Karl Marx described. Back then, there had been no failed communist systems, but because Capitalism was still young and developing, there were plenty of examples of how Capitalism (supposedly) was destroying the lives of the lower class (factory workers.) Men like Bastiat and Von Mises were living in rough times when Communism had gained a tremendous foothold in western lives, and Communist thugs like W.E.B Debois were treated as celebrities. Imagine being a capitalist during the 30's, a time when America was an economic wasteland and the Soviet Union was seen as the bright shining star of the future. the early 1930s was the only time in American history when more people emigrated out of the country than immigrated in. As late as the 1940s movies which idolized communism were still being made, as shone in the book "Ayn Rand and the Song of Russia." and before that fight, it was the fight that Jefferson and Madison fought: the fight between Capitalism and Mercantilist monarchy. Nowadays, how many Mercantilist Monarchists do you know? as for Marxism, the only Marxists I have ever met are either volatile teenagers or intellegensia who are too disillusioned from reality to actually make any contributions to society. We have reality, rights, and reason on our side. We will win. But we can not slack in our fight, because should we falter, or cease, America and the world will go the way of the Roman empire. Take it to the welfare statists. Let them dream of France and Sweden, those places will become ineffectual places eventually (as they already are.) Then one day in the future when Capitalism faces it's next opponent, our descendants will look at our lives with mixed awe. They will be Incredulous that we were able to hold on to our values while under assault from the welfare statists, but at the same time envious as we do not know of the new enemies that Capitalism currently faces. perhaps no one can better describe my way of thinking better than the lovely Ms. Rand herself can: "The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours. But to win it requires total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence, which is man, for his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the morality of life and yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth." ~ Ayn Rand (these words brought tears to my eyes the first time I read them)

I don't think any Objectivist would wonder about this at all. notice that I didn't say that I specifically wonder why I am no longer a Christian (thanks CF.) But I do have family and friends who think that it is some sort of fad or phase I am going through, others are still in disbelieve.

Luke 14:26 - If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Matthew 10:34 - For I am come to set man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Matthew 10:24 - And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And people wonder why I am no longer a Christian. [Edited to correct capitalization. (I am not a fan of Christ either, but it was his NAME...) - CF]

O'ism is fine, toolboxj, he doesn't like objectivism because Objectivism and objectivism are two different things. Onto the topic at hand, I am sorry to hear about your brother, rifleman, but remember who is being the rational one, personal philosophies notwithstanding. I assume you gave your brother your opinion in a rational manner, and yet it was he who flew off the handle. When something like that occurs, it really falls on him to accept a person as they are. Until then, treat him how you always treated him, without any ill will. He may be trying to guilt you back into being a Christian. As for me, I have yet to tell my parents that I am atheist, pretty much because it really hasn't come up. I have not blurted out of no where "I am an atheist" but I do try to speak of religion as if I don't believe in it. For example, I call the Bible Christian mythology, and I make my preference for Nietzsche and Rand quite prominent. I had a long discussion with my roommate about religion (being that he is a practicing Jehova's Witness) but since that day we have kind of an unspoken rule about staying out of each other's metaphysical lives. Call it a mutual respect for each other's values. I am glad I know him. [Edited to correct capitalization and spelling of "atheist." - CF]

I haven't really given thought to the moral dilemma of porn since I was a christian (because looking at a woman and becoming aroused according to Jesus was a sin. Apparently he wasn't a very good psychologist), because it was always a mild distraction that never took the least amount of prescedence in my life. I am like Greedycapitalist on this one, when one finds romantic love, Porn becomes useless to a rational person. When I was with my ex-girlfriend, we led a pretty rational relationship (the rationality broke down at the end, in a fit of Kantian rhetoric in which it was my fault she cheated on me) and during that year and 8 months I never had the inclination to look at any porn. as for how I would define it, I would say that pornography is the creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire. This definition I think makes the distinction between substance-less pornography, erotic art (which may hold artistic value) and medical sexual videos. Is there benevolent, "pro-sex" biggrin.gif porn out there? Would that change any of the evaluations of it offered here so far? I have looked, and I would say no. It seems the object of virtually all porn out there is the degredation of the female. The only stuff that I can think of is the stuff one might find on the late night Cinemax, that is more directed to the enjoyment of both sexes, usually married couples (as opposed to hard-core, which is a game of "who can degrade the woman more.") One interesting item of note is the question of why our country has a particular hatred or fear of anything erotic or sexual. Best example was the "incident" at last year's superbowl, and the ensuring outcry.

Anyway, my wife's family was starving when she was a kid, and she and her sister both worked like crazy, with virtually no resources, to achieve educational and professional success in China then the U.S. At least in my wife's case, she has nothing but contempt for any lazy poor person in the U.S. who would demand a moral claim on our money, particularly considering that even in inner cities the standard of living and opportunities are 100 times what she started out with, and that they are making the decision to throw their lives away. what a beautiful story, A.West. I guess some people have had freedom and prosperity for so long they lose perspective of what's important. I would value her opinion over some rich literati's any day of the year. give my highest regards to your wife.

"How Capitalism saved America" By Thomas DiLorenzo was supposed to be good. I haven't read too much of DiLorenzo, but what I have read was excellent. He's very pro-free market.

Thats a great work ethic you have Labrat. I wished more Americans placed that kind of emphasis on their children. Alas, the only thing many kids in America have is the NCAA dream. I think environment has more to do with it, because I know parents who place a tremendous emphasis on grades, but MTV tells them to place an emphasis on parties. Mainstream Kantian Nihilism is destroying this country (Perhaps I am a bit disillusioned because I just got back from my business law class... boy if you ever wanted to see the consequence of Kant in action, study law) I agree with your assertion in that I don't believe for a second that any race is inferior to any other (which is why I call the BS on my friends when they try to make philosophical statements like "Everyone is a racist to some extent.") Maybe my family just got lucky in the child selection process? Seriously, being around those two are the closest I have ever come to developing an inferiority complex. But I have read way to much Nietszche and Rand to let that thought process develop.

heh, I was just being sarcastic. In the sense that if China ever goes capitalist, I think that it would totally eclipse the United States in size and power not that these things should be of any importance to us.

as long as you use coffee rationally, then morality isn't an issue. That is the case in life itself, rational use of any substance is not intrinsically bad, nor does irrational use make the substance intrinsically bad. In the case of irrational use, the blaim falls on the individual who made the irrational choice, not the substance itself. A rock can be used to bash someone's head in, but that doesn't make the rock intrinsically bad. Perhaps this isnt the place to say it, but I have heard reports that even steriods, when used properly, are safe. Problems arise when "Professional" wrestlers jack themselves up on 10,000 dollars worth a month, and eventually develop manboobs and beat their wives, then liberals revert to their old Hobbesian notion that men need to be controlled for their own safety.

China scares me, as an American. From the viewpoint of an ethno-centric competitor. I have two cousins who were adopted from china; orphans who were the unfortunate but forgettable byproduct of the "moral" communist system. One of the girls has a tattoo of a tea leaf on her back, which is a reminder to her that her parents geniunly loved her, but were forced to give her up. and holy hell, are they talented. Talented as in the 6 year old already knows how to play the violin and claims her favorite subject is Math. Talented as in the 9 year old is at the top of her class academically and the top athlete in her soccor team. There is no doubt in my mind that these two little girls will grow up to be the next generation's Dagny Taggarts. Whenever I have the pleasure of being in their company, I feel like Eddie Willers in the company of John Galt and Hank Rearden. If China ever awakens as a fully Capitalist system, the West beware, they will bestride the world like a colossus.

I know this won't reach him, but this is a symbolic thanks to Stephen. Everyone makes stupid mistakes. I wouldn't want another Johnson either!